Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords. [38350]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): To date, 52 local authorities have transferred their stock, raising over £3.7 billion of private sector money which has been invested, improving the level of repairs and maintenance in transferred housing. I am therefore encouraging all authorities to follow their example.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging words. He probably knows that West Dorset, which covers part of my constituency, has benefited from homes being released, thereby becoming a better landlord and keeping rents down and productivity up. Money is also released back into West Dorset to spend on job creation projects. Other councils in my area, however, say that they have to join a list and wait their turn if they want to get into transferring.
Will my right hon. Friend offer more encouragement to ensure that this happens early and to ensure that the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who continually try to block progress are prevented from doing so?

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly be happy to look at any suggestions from the local authorities concerned. I do

want to encourage them. They should not use excuses, because the fact is that the money can be used for the benefit of tenants. We can lever in private sector money that would not otherwise be available, and maintenance is thereby much improved.

Mr. Betts: Is not the Secretary of State addressing the wrong issue? It is not housing transfer that concerns tenants most. Most of them want to stay with their local authorities anyway. What worries tenants is the need to build new homes and to improve existing ones. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be ashamed of the fact that the Government have allowed public investment in housing to drop by half since the last general election, at a time when local authorities possess £5 billion in capital receipts which could be used to improve homes and build new ones? Should not the Secretary of State be dealing with that instead of with fanciful notions about the transfer of housing stock?

Mr. Gummer: It is odd, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that, that Sheffield should be one of the first local authorities concerned with the estates renewal challenge fund—which is precisely what we are talking about. Transfer releases capital from the private sector, which enables that capital to be spent. So the tenants who want better maintenance and improved homes get them. Experience in Suffolk Coastal, my area, shows that whereas there used to be many complaints, even about a well run local housing authority, there are now very few complaints because of the improvements that have been achieved. The hon. Gentleman should follow what Manchester has done, and what has been done elsewhere by local authorities that are a little more progressive than he is.

Rough Sleepers Initiative

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has further to extend the rough sleepers initiative. [38351]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I am studying the results of the survey into the extent of rough sleeping outside central London undertaken on behalf of the Government by Shelter and I expect to announce my conclusions shortly.

Mr. Thomason: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people who have been sleeping rough in the centre of London since 1990 and the introduction of the initiative has fallen to about a quarter of the previous figure, according to the independent survey? Does he agree that it is therefore important that the initiative should be extended outside central London as soon as possible?

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter is well known. The initiative has been successful in central London and we are investigating the needs of other places which might require such an initiative. In some places, facilities may exist but, for example, the outreach services are not effectively directing people who need those facilities to


them. My announcement on the future of the rough sleepers initiative will cover a range of responses to help people in the direst need.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a telling commentary on the Government that so many people are sleeping rough? Prior to 1979 and in the late 1960s, I do not remember leaving the House and seeing anyone sleeping rough in Charing Cross or in the Strand. On my way home now, many people are in that desperate situation, and that shows only too well the failure of the Government's housing policy.

Mr. Curry: The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, that, according to independent counts—not done by the Government—the numbers have come down significantly. The hon. Gentleman would be foolish indeed if he assumed that all rough sleeping is directly attributable to one cause or another. We are all aware of the fragmentation of society, and the Leader of the Opposition recently devoted a speech to that subject. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government should be held responsible, automatically and immediately, for every development in society, he has a bizarre view of government. We are tackling the problems with remarkable success and with the co-operation of the voluntary sector. The hon. Gentleman would do better to pay tribute to those who work hard to help those in the greatest need.

Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to accuse anybody of NIMBYism, and I acknowledge the achievements of the rough sleepers initiative, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that friction is increasing at the interface between the solutions to the problems faced by rough sleepers and, in some cases, their behaviour and the residential communities on which those solutions are beginning to impinge? Has he given thought to how that friction might be better lubricated?

Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend is correct. It is often difficult to obtain planning permission, for example, for some of the specialist facilities, such as de-tox units, because residents are naturally fearful of the possible effect on the neighbourhood. If we can draw rough sleepers into some framework of care and discipline, that is better for the neighbourhood than if they remain on the street, but it is clear that people who live close to facilities should be invited to visit the facilities and the framework that exists and to give their consent. The changes must be made with the residents, not against them.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister is keen to quote figures, may I ask whether he agrees with the conclusions of the recent report of the inquiry into preventing youth homelessness, which was chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, that some 300,000 youngsters experienced homelessness last year? Does he agree that the spectacle of young people begging and sleeping on the streets of our cities is the most terrible indictment of the failure of the Government's housing policy?
Why, therefore—when he and his Department are trying, through the rough sleepers initiative, to reduce the numbers sleeping rough—do his colleagues in other Departments undermine his efforts? Why is the Secretary

of State for Social Security introducing benefit cuts that will leave many more under-25-year-olds sleeping rough because they do not have the means to pay for housing?

Mr. Curry: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not accept the figures of the inquiry chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, because they are based on a sample survey of single and homeless people taken in 1991, which has been extrapolated to 1995. There is a problem of young homelessness and, indeed, of all sorts and I would like to be able to tackle all those problems, but such figures, which are extrapolated, based on unreliable sources and designed for propaganda purposes, are not helpful. People would be better served if voluntary effort were devoted to helping those in need, rather than to concocting propaganda figures.

Construction Industry

Sir Anthony Durant: T: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in relation to the construction industry. [38352]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): My Department's role within the Government and the EU is to help sell British construction products and services in the domestic, European and world markets.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recovery in the construction industry is still slow? Will he encourage the private finance initiative, in co-operation with the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, and try to get it moving a little faster?

Mr. Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend and I have met those in the construction industry several times to discuss issues related to the PFI and, as a result, have encouraged bilaterals with the Departments to which my hon. Friend referred, but not just those Departments, because we must ensure that any, obstacles are overcome, whichever Departments are involved.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister accept that half a million jobs in the construction industry have been lost over the past six years? How does he justify the Government's policy doing such damage to the industry, when £5 billion of local authority capital receipts are tied up and unusable and there is massive need in the country? Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that?

Mr. Jones: I remember the borrowing binge that the last Labour Government went through, and the massive inflation that did immense damage to the construction industry. We would no doubt have that again if we ever had the misfortune to have another Labour Government.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will my hon. Friend have a word with his colleagues in the Treasury and draw their attention to the part of the construction industry that is carried out on the black economy, to the detriment of fair competition, adequate training skills and general competence, not to mention the Chancellor's cash flow?


Would it not be of great benefit if that illegal activity were reduced, the revenue restored and the prospect of tax cuts for honest taxpayers brought much closer?

Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, legitimate contractors have considerable interest in trying to tackle the black economy. We have been engaged in discussions through both the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, and are contemplating what steps to take at this very moment.

Business Rates

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much tax was paid last year by businesses in excess of the amount which they would have paid had not transitional arrangements been in force for those businesses the values of whose premises were reduced at the time of the most recent valuation. [38353]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Following the 1995 revaluation, 265,000 businesses saw a reduction in their rates bills in 1995–96. Of that reduction, £1.1 billion was deferred to help cushion the impact of the revaluation on 1.1 million ratepayers who would otherwise have faced substantial increases in their rates bills.

Mr. Rendel: Given the lack of logic behind singling out those whose business values have fallen to pay welcome subsidies to those whose business values have increased, may we assume that the Minister will now persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the transitional arrangement for those whose values have fallen before the next general election—presumably in the forthcoming Budget—as happened before the last general election?

Sir Paul Beresford: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would refer to the previous rate review, in which the reductions reflected on the businesses in London actually benefited them. In other words, it is swings and roundabouts. Businesses in London and the south-east benefited from the transitional arrangements then, while the reverse is now the case.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Chancellor in next month's Budget to look at the impact of uniform business rates on small shopkeepers?

Sir Paul Beresford: Certainly, and as a part-time small business man, that matter concerns me as well. It is also of considerable concern to the Department.

Area Cost Adjustment

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the independent review into the area cost adjustment. [38354]

Mr. Gummer: In our consultation, all four local government organisations have expressed reservations

about implementing this review and have asked for further work. I will consider the representations after my meeting with them tomorrow.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent review endorsed the view expressed by Buckinghamshire county council and other local authorities in the south-east that the area cost adjustment needs to be enhanced rather than reduced? Will he look seriously at implementing the report by the independent review team, especially in the context of the difficulties that we face in Buckinghamshire as a consequence of Milton Keynes becoming a separate unitary authority?

Mr. Gummer: It is unusual for all the local authority associations to express similar reservations, with differing degrees of intensity, about the difficulty of implementing a report. Therefore, I think that it is proper to listen to them carefully. I understand my hon. Friend's view, and the report makes some very important points. However, I do not think that we should rush ahead without hearing what the local authorities have to say.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the review's proposals, Cambridgeshire county council would gain by about £10 million this financial year? Does he believe that the Government were justified in imposing a capping limit on Cambridgeshire in its standard spending assessment in the face of that sort of evidence?

Mr. Gummer: All those who would benefit from the proposed changes are very much in favour of them, and all those who would lose from them are very much against them—the fervour increases with the degree of gain or loss. We maintain a fair and reasonable system. Cambridge was warned that, if it sought to gain money from the community outside that system, it would be capped—and capped it was.

Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in Derbyshire and elsewhere about the way in which the current area cost adjustment works? Is he aware also that there is great dismay that the basis of the proposed reforms appears to be fundamentally flawed because the whole range of incomes has not been taken into account, particularly public sector salaries? Will he give an undertaking to take those concerns fully into account before he makes a final judgment about the proposals?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend points to only one of the issues raised by the local authority associations. They are concerned about some of the methodology used. I am determined that any changes we might make would commend themselves to the House as a whole and would remain in place for a reasonable and stable period. In order to do that, I must take into account precisely the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Wildlife Habitats

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve the provision of habitats for threatened wildlife species. [38355]

Mr. Gummer: Our biodiversity plan is accepted as a world leader. It is based on a programme of targets to conserve endangered species in their habitats.

Ms Quin: While there has been a positive reaction to the publication of biodiversity action plans to save threatened species, such as the red squirrel, is the Secretary of State aware that there is concern that it may not be possible to find the necessary resources, from both public and private sources, to fund those action plans? Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the plans will not fail due to the lack of a relatively modest level of resources?

Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that this biodiversity action plan involves a very direct agreement between Government and the non-governmental organisations which helped to frame it. I have every intention of ensuring that it succeeds. I am committed to protecting those species, and I shall see that that protection is carried through.

Mr. Meacher: In view of the known damage that is caused to wildlife habitats by the excessive and reckless use of certain toxic pesticides leaching into water supplies and contaminating land, will the Secretary of State take steps to restrict or ban the use of the more serious pesticides? In light of the Government's admission that Gulf war syndrome was caused by organophosphate spraying, and in light of official reports in 1951 and 1987 that condemned the use of those highly toxic chemicals in farming—particularly for sheep dipping—will the Secretary of State now ban the use of organophosphates?

Mr. Gummer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench as Opposition spokesman on this subject, but I remind him that his question is entirely one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make such general statements about various substances, some of which have done a great deal to enable us to feed people in this country and elsewhere.

Social Housing

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the provision of social housing. [38356]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The falling numbers of homeless, of rough sleepers and of households in temporary accommodation, show that we are already meeting need. We are also encouraging effective local authority policies to encourage the most effective use of existing housing stock.

Mr. Heppell: Is the Minister aware that there are 11,500 people on Nottingham city council's waiting list? With the social housing programme at its lowest level since the war, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is time to allow the council to release its capital receipts of over £40 million to try to boost the housing programme and to put some of the people on the waiting list—many of them elderly or disabled—into decent, affordable housing?

Mr. Jones: Councillors are not sitting with their capital receipts money under the mattress. If we followed the hon. Gentleman's advice, there would be upward pressure

on interest rates, extra borrowing and an increase in council tax. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to come clean about that?

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that social housing and all other forms of development are best established against a clear local plan? Does he therefore understand the concern that we have in Leeds that, having been through the longest planning inquiry in history and having been promised a report in 1997, we have now been told that it has been deferred to 1999? Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into the reasons for the delay and try to bring forward some certainty in our local planning, both for social housing and for everything else in our city?

Mr. Jones: I fully understand the importance of my hon. Friend's point. If we are to have a plan-led system, we must have up-to-date plans. I am discussing with officials and a wide range of people outside the Department how we might speed up the system in regard to unitary development plans. That being so, my hon. Friend makes his point at a timely moment.

Elected Mayors

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages of having elected mayors. [38357]

Mr. Curry: My Department received 600 responses to its consultation on the idea of locally-elected mayors. There were four favourable responses. Not a single London borough; not a single metropolitan council; not a single district council or for that matter a single county council was in favour.

Dr. Wright: Having spent 17 years trying to emasculate local government, could not the Government now take the opportunity to try to rejuvenate it? Why do they set their face against an idea that has the support of more than 70 per cent. of the population, or at least agree to some experiments? The Deputy Prime Minister was once enthusiastic about this idea, but that by itself is surely no reason for the Government to be against it.

Mr. Curry: I have just said that local government is against it. The Government have told local authorities that, if it is an area that they wish to explore, there is no reason why we should be hostile to it. When we consulted local government, it was clear that it was not interested. It was much more interested in the structure of committees. It was more interested, perhaps, in some form of cabinet system for local government. It was also more interested in the idea of a council manager. It was especially interested in councillors' allowances. It was not particularly interested in locally elected mayors.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Could the candidates for mayoralty include those who are in favour of one type of school for their own children and another type for everyone else's?

Mr. Curry: I am sure that the bolt will have gone home, as it always does when it is fired by my hon. Friend.

Unfit Homes

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in England are unfit for human habitation. [38358]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Against the statutory definition the last English house condition survey in 1991 recorded 1.5 million such dwellings. More up-to-date information will be available from the 1996 English house condition survey, which is due to report next year.

Mr. Bennett: Given the increasing need for new accommodation, does the Minister accept that it is extremely important for the Government to make the best use of existing stock? Is he satisfied that there are now sufficient resources to bring unfit dwellings up to date to modern standards?

Mr. Jones: There are many other sources of resources that are not being properly tapped by local authorities. As has been said, we want to encourage local authorities to go for large-scale voluntary transfers, which would release resources for this and other purposes.

Local Authority Dwellings

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of local authority dwellings at the latest date; and how many were built in the last year. [38359]

Mr. Curry: There were 4.4 million dwellings in the social rented sector at the beginning of April 1995, of which 3.6 million were local authority dwellings. More than 76,000 new social lettings were provided in 1995–6, including 800 in new dwellings built by local authorities. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the most savage indictment of this Government over 17 years is that, in 1978–79, when the Labour Government lost office, local authorities built 78 times more houses than the Government are building at this time? Only a paltry 605 were built for the whole of England and Wales during the course of last year. Old-age pensioners are being shunted from hospitals to community care who should be in warden-controlled accommodation.
When the Prime Minister talks about coming from two-roomed accommodation in Brixton to 10 Downing street, what about all the others, those who have only two rooms in which to live; and what about all those who do not have a roof over their head? It is time that the Government released capital receipts to allow Labour local authorities to build dwellings for the people who badly need them.

Mr. Curry: It is the dwellings that were built by so many Labour local authorities that we are now having to put right by programmes such as estate renewal. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he has learnt absolutely nothing. He knows nothing about housing associations. He knows nothing about private sector investment of £10 billion in the social housing sector. He

knows nothing about new opportunities for landlords. He knows nothing about new opportunities through housing companies. He wants none of that. He has learnt nothing and he has forgotten nothing. He is the last Bourbon of Bolsover and has views of no future but a failed past.

Mrs. Peacock: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much of the presently retained capital receipts would be available for building if all local authorities paid off their debts?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. While local authorities maintain debt, they have to pay interest on it and would have to levy council taxes to do so, or they can use the income from their capital receipts to meet those charges. It is entirely mythical that capital receipts are some bonus that has already been paid before. We are talking about public expenditure, and if it were to be spent, other spending would have to replace it or there would have to be borrowing. If the hon. Member for Bolsover really wants to help authorities that are in the worst situation, it would be much more simple to give credit approvals. That is public expenditure as well. There is no way around it.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that just 605 houses were started by local authorities in England last year? As an example, in the north-west there are 14,000 homeless families, but not one house was started by local authorities in the north-west—not one house in Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale or Manchester. Does he not think that that is a disgrace? Does he not realise that many local authorities have capital receipts? That money should be invested in finding somewhere decent for homeless people.

Mr. Curry: The Labour party is obsessed with capital receipts and is trying to do it with mirrors—[Interruption.] The Labour party has said that it is not prepared to redefine the public sector borrowing requirement. The shadow Treasury team has said that. It may be that, occasionally, Governments get caught by their Treasury when they arrive in office, but it is remarkable to be shackled by the Treasury before being anywhere near office.
This is public expenditure, however it is defined, and it is not a disgrace that local authorities are not building many houses, because we do not intend them to. We think that housing associations do the job better, and if we had not moved the emphasis to housing associations, the social housing market would not have received £10 billion in private sector investment since 1988. That is an outstanding record. It is one that I hope other people will emulate. There is no case for continuing local authority build when one can pull private sector money alongside public sector money, as local authorities do by helping housing associations.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise standard spending assessment formulae to take greater account of the needs of rural areas. [38360]

Sir Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have commissioned some detailed research on sparsity which shows that there is no need at present for any radical changes to standard spending assessment formulae.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that it frequently costs more to provide services in rural areas, and that many people living in the countryside do not enjoy the services enjoyed by those who live in towns and cities, such as recreation and leisure facilities and concessionary travel arrangements? When my hon. Friend considers the studies to which he referred, will he please bear in mind those costs on shire district councils and ensure that, if anything, their SSAs go up, not down?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be interested to know of two other pieces of research. The sparsely populated authorities researched this subject, and their final report concluded that the allowances for sparsity should be at least as great as they are at present. Interestingly, the research for the Association of Metropolitan Authorities argued for lower percentages, and concluded that there was an argument for no sparsity allowances at all.

Mr. William O'Brien: When considering the revision of SSAs in rural areas, will the Minister have regard to the representations made during the past five or six years by authorities in the Webber Craig group for fairness in the allocation of SSAs for education, social services and community care?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman makes such a large, kindly and clear plea that I shall certainly take notice of it.

Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend has made it clear that some people do not believe that there is any need for a sparsity factor at all. May I say firmly and clearly that in West Dorset we need that sparsity factor and we would take a poor view if it were withdrawn?

Sir Paul Beresford: As I think I said in my original answer, research shows that there is a need for the sparsity factor, but that no great change is required.

Rented Housing

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current availability of houses for rent. [38361]

Mr. Curry: There are around 4.5 million homes in the social rented sector and more than 2 million privately rented dwellings in England.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister admit that, since the Conservative party came to power, the number of rented homes in Britain has dropped by more than a million? In his view, does "opportunity for all" include the right of less well-off people to rent decent homes that they can afford, or is it simply the right for people to be homeless during the last cold winter of Tory rule?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. and learned Gentleman follows these matters, he will know that I place great emphasis on the provision of rented accommodation and, in particular, the revival of the private rented sector. That has happened. There are now 2 million homes in that sector. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to read The Observer, which I suspect is a newspaper read more by Opposition Members than by Conservative Members, he would see that Halifax Mortgage Services, Woolwich Direct, Mortgage Express and Homeloans Direct are now providing mortgages for people to build homes to rent in the private sector. The reason given is that
the investment climate is now more favourable than in decades. Rent controls have been abolished. Investors are free to charge market prices and can guarantee possession of their properties through assured shorthold tenancies. There is also scope for long-term capital growth.
This Government are doing more to help the private rented sector to get a better balance in housing than any previous Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who voted against the right to buy and does not like private rented accommodation, is stuck in the old mindset that the only house worth having is a council-built property. That is not true.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many thousands of local authority houses are now standing empty, and have stood empty for years in Labour-controlled local authorities, and that we should not forget that, if there are housing black spots in Britain, the Labour party is responsible for creating them?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is correct. Basic good management is an essential element in housing: collecting the rents; when tenants leave, getting new tenants in rapidly; and ensuring that repairs are carried out on time. That is an important element. There are also many empty properties in the private sector. It is important that those 600,000 or so properties are brought into use. There is no excuse for such an asset lying idle, whoever owns it.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not recognise that the thousands of people throughout Britain who are on waiting lists to rent houses do not believe a single word he says? They cannot understand why council house waiting lists are longer than in 1979 and why many councils have had to go back to a points system which they abolished many years ago.

Mr. Curry: What is understood is that, where houses have been transferred to a housing association, the satisfaction level expressed by the tenant is always high. We need a better balance in housing, which the Housing Act 1996 will achieve. We also need to mobilise private sector resources to go alongside the public sector to deliver social housing. With £10 billion in that respect in the past few years, we are achieving it.

Playing Fields and Derelict Land

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the use of (a) playing fields and (b) derelict land for housing and other construction; and if he will make a statement. [38362]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We want to make the best use of derelict sites for housing and other development. We also want to protect playing fields because of their vital contribution to health and to the quality of life. Our planning policies are designed to do both those things. Since August, any proposal to develop on a playing field must be referred to the Sports Council for England, as statutory consultee, to ensure that local planning authorities are aware of any deficiency in playing field provision before making any decisions.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent action in saving the GWR playing fields in west Ealing in my constituency from development for housing by British Rail, and contrast that with the Ealing Labour council's strenuous attempts to build houses on Dormers Wells high school playing fields, until the council was stopped from doing so by the Government. May I support his admirable policies of building on derelict land, which is obviously more suitable than playing fields?

Mr. Jones: In his usual telling way, my hon. Friend makes the point that it is only the Conservative party that cares about the environment.

Mr. Tony Banks: How much derelict land is owned by the Government?

Mr. Jones: Too much derelict land is owned by all owners of property in Britain, and it is incumbent not just on the Government but on local authorities, public institutions and private owners to try to get that land developed.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that local councils such as my own in Wyre should be encouraged to develop land in urban areas, particularly derelict land, and not develop open fields on the edges of towns? Will he ensure that in future local plans reflect that need?

Mr. Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Given the great demographic challenges to which we must face up, the key way of trying to ensure that houses are provided is to ensure that they are on already used land. It is depressing that, when we are trying to encourage a return to central towns and cities, the Labour party spokesman on these issues, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is busy all the time promising developers that there will be a turning back from the encouragement to go into the centres.

Forestry

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the environmental benefits of forestry. [38364]

Mr. Gummer: Representations have been very large—both in number and in variety.

Mrs. Jackson: Is the Secretary of State not aware of the huge concerns in community forests, especially those in urban regions such as South Yorkshire, about the huge threat that the landfill tax poses to forests because of the increase in illegal dumping? Is he aware that that, added

to the fact that only 7 per cent. of forest sold since 1991 has had public access agreements—which is disgraceful—means that the public will be denied the proper enjoyment of public access woodland?

Mr. Gummer: The landfill tax has been welcomed by almost every environmental organisation in Britain and has set an example for the rest of Europe and the world. The hon. Lady shows again that the Labour party does not care two hoots about the environment, and will use every method to attack the Government's progressive environmental policies.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at 7 per cent., forest cover in England is the lowest in Europe, and that forest plantings have halved since the late 1980s? I suggest that that is not consistent with the rural White Paper, where the Government's intention was to double the rate of forestry cover within the next 50 years. Are there further measures which my right hon. Friend can take to encourage the planting rate, which will have an economic and environmental impact?

Mr. Gummer: This is the first Government to make a commitment to double the area of forest cover. I am determined to achieve that, but we need to do so in a way that does not cause a financial ramp, which was a feature of the previous system. We must find a sensible way to increase forest cover.

Ms Ruddock: Has the Secretary of State no shame? Is it not an indictment of his so-called green credentials that, in the past five years, only 7 per cent. of the forestry land that has been sold off has had public access guaranteed? Is it not a fact that, in raising millions of pounds, he has colluded with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise relief on inheritance tax for the few while denying the many their natural inheritance of access to our beautiful countryside?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady is wrong as usual, but it is nice to hear her talk about the environment, as no one on the Opposition Benches does so at any time. The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has made only one speech on the environment in two and a half years, so little does he care about it.
The hon. Lady is wrong, because woods that are used by the public are not sold off. Arrangements are always made for continued public access to areas where such access has been important; so she should not only talk about the environment more frequently but get her facts right.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38380]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Campbell: As a fellow working class warrior—I will take my coat off—will the Prime Minister confirm that he sent his children to a private school?

The Prime Minister: I believe in choice. I do not seek to deny choice to other people.

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38381]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Congdon: Which party controls the council with the worst GCSE results in England? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will take tough measures to tackle failing schools, rather than spouting about the family from thousands of miles away?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure which authority it is, but I know that the authorities with the poorest records are all run by the Labour party. That is undoubtedly true. As my hon. Friend intimated, we have now taken powers to deal with failing schools, and, when necessary, we shall use those powers.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the spate of reports of crisis in the national health service, culminating in a hospital refusing even emergency referrals of elderly patients because of a shortage of beds, are a disgrace? Will he accept the judgment of the head of the British Medical Association that that crisis is directly due to the Conservative Government's internal market reforms, which have undermined the health service?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that for a second—nor do a large number of people in the health service up and down the country. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to travel up and down the country within the health service, where he will see in hospitals and in primary health care services the advantages that the reforms have brought about and will continue to bring about in the future. In particular, he may care to look at some of the group general practices that I have visited recently.

Mr. Blair: What I am putting to the Prime Minister is precisely the view of the doctors and nurses who work in the national health service. Perhaps he will confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, there have been 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. Since he became Prime Minister, in London alone there have been 2,500 fewer acute beds, and half the casualty departments in London have closed. When even doctors and nurses with a lifetime's experience in the health service say that that is due to the Government's internal market reforms, can the Prime Minister not see the fundamental damage that those reforms are doing to the very principles of the national health service?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he wishes to test whether the reforms are working, I offer him the one that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he

was shadow Health Secretary: he said that the acid test was whether more patients were being treated. More patients are being treated; patient waiting lists have fallen; 1.5 million more patients are being treated than before the reforms; health expenditure has risen and been provided for by the Government; there are more doctors and more dentists; and waiting times have decreased dramatically. That is a health service providing a wider and better service. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman cherry-picks in order to criticise the health service when he should be supporting it.

Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute a single word I said. Furthermore, I do not know how he dare mention dentistry in the national health service after what his Government have done to it. He asked me to talk to those who work in the NHS. Does he recall what the chair of the consultants committee of the BMA said, just in the past few days? He said:
I fear the hospital service will he close to collapse this winter.
Do not people know from their experience that waiting lists are getting longer, people are still lying for hours on end on trolleys in casualty departments, acute beds are scarcer and staff and nurse morale is lower? The right hon. Gentleman simply washes his hands of it. If that is the experience—[HON. MEMBERS: No."] This is the experience of people in the Tory national health service. If that is their experience, is it any wonder that people today know that the Tories cannot ever be trusted on the national health service?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that most of what he has just said about the health service is completely misleading and, in many parts, totally inaccurate. Waiting lists are falling. Since 1979, the health service has had the largest sustained building programme of any stage in its history. There are more doctors—that is a matter of fact. There are more dentists—that is a matter of fact. There are more nurses and midwives—that is a matter of fact. I regret very much that he chooses to run down a service that the people who use it know from experience is a better service, which is improving day after day. Treatments that were never before available are provided more speedily and are improving. That is a record in the health service of which we can be proud. Unlike his party, we have not cut building and nurses' pay.

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38382]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tremendous news announced today by Vauxhall at its plant in Ellesmere Port in north-west England of £300 million-worth of new investment and 200 jobs? Does he agree that that not only is good news but will create a raft of new opportunities for the region—opportunities that would not be there if a minimum wage and the social chapter were thrust on us?

The Prime Minister: Today's announcement is certainly more good news on top of a range of inward investment in different parts of the country that has brought a great deal of hope and employment to many parts of the United Kingdom. If we continue to pursue the same policies in future, I believe that we shall continue to attract very large-scale inward investment, partly using the United Kingdom as the base for operations in Europe and beyond, which I very much welcome. That will be lost if we follow the wrong policies. If Labour Members are so certain that the minimum wage will cause no harm, perhaps they will tell us what the minimum wage level will be, so that a judgment may be made.

Mr. Ashdown: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple question of general principle? Is it right for a Government to seek to interfere in or manipulate the outcome of a Select Committee of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: As you, Madam Speaker, said yesterday, allegations ought not to be bandied across the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has a complaint, he should put it to the appropriate Committee, and he will see that there is no one in this House more concerned than I am that it should be properly examined.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to confirm to the House a statement that he made in a letter to me on 1 October? The letter stated:
The Coronation Oath is indeed regarded as a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is binding throughout Her reign. Ministers would not advise Her Majesty to sign into law any provision which contradicted Her Oath.

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that that is my view of the Coronation oath.

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38384]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAllion: On the day the FTSE index of the top 100 UK companies soared to record new levels, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the 12,000 Scottish teenagers and under-25s every year who register as homeless? Will he remember that they are but the tip of an iceberg that spreads throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he resolve at least to stop preaching at them about decency, duty and responsibility, and instead begin to show a scrap of decency—a modicum of the duty and responsibility that his Government owe to them—by guaranteeing each and every one of them their human right to a decent and safe home to live in?

The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that an extra level of taxation in Scotland would help those people—I very much doubt

it. Throughout the past 17 years, we have followed policies that will widen opportunity for people, whatever strata of society they may be in and whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is the policy that we have followed. It is the policy in which I believe, and it is the policy that we shall continue to follow.

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent examples of the way in which female victims are sometimes treated in court, particularly where sexual offences are alleged? Did he read of the cases in which one young lady was cross-examined for six hours by her rapist and another was cross-examined for 12 days by lawyers acting for six defendants? Should it not be a matter of urgency that court proceedings are reformed to spare female victims that cruelty?

The Prime Minister: I think that there will be a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend said. Certainly, the case in which the lady was cross-examined by the accused rapist struck deeply with many people throughout the country. I agree that it is something that we should examine.

Mr. Brian David Jenkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38385]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the price review announced today by the Director General of Water Services shows that the Labour party was right all along and that consumers have been ripped off for years under weak regulation, weak government and weak leadership?

The Prime Minister: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It shows the Labour party to have been wrong all along. If the industries had remained in public ownership, we would not have had any regulator looking at price reductions, we would not have had a better service, and we would not have had the extra investment. We would still have had the massive amount of taxpayer subsidy to inefficient industries.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the London-based bleat of the Leader of the Opposition and come to my constituency, where he will find the best health service in Europe at all levels, as my postbag proves, week after week?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks not only for himself and for his constituents but for the many millions of people who use the NHS each year and who know from their own experiences how well they have been treated in it.

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38386]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to have a high-speed rail link on the west coast main line—with all its environmental advantages, including a reduction in road congestion, and with all the advantages for the western part of the British Isles—there

will be a need for public money to upgrade that line? If so, have the Government given any consideration to this matter?

The Prime Minister: We have put a great deal of public money into a number of rail lines—[Interruption.] I suggest that, if Opposition Members do not understand that, they go to look at the new services. I suggest that they also examine the extra investment after the privatisation of British Rail-a privatisation that they said could not be done, should not be done and would not be done. The fact is that it has been done, and that it is a great success. Investment is up, and the service is improving.

Primary Care

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the development of primary health care services.
The Government have always accorded a high priority to the development of NHS primary care. The last 17 years have seen substantial extra resources flow into the primary care sector, and those resources have al lowed general practitioners to extend the range of care provided within their surgeries. More GPs are working within the NHS, employing more nurses and therapists, and there has been an unprecedented investment programme in GP surgery buildings. There has been a continued steady growth of NHS dentistry, and a greater recognition of the role of pharmacists in the delivery of health care.
The development of GP fundholding has also changed the relationship between primary and secondary care, and has allowed GPs—both fundholders and non-fundholders—to use their knowledge of their patients' needs to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of NHS care. From next April, 58 per cent. of the population will be covered by a fundholding GP.
Despite this record of achievement, however, there remain areas of weakness that need to be addressed. Some inner-city areas have not fully benefited from the development of NHS primary care, and many have argued that the statutory framework for the delivery of primary care is now holding back some desirable service developments.
Against that background, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to enter into consultations with patient groups and the primary care professions, and with others interested in the future of primary care, to develop proposals that will allow the continued development of NHS primary care.
The conclusions of my hon. Friend's consultations were set out in the Government's document "Primary Care—The Future", which was published this June. Similar discussions were held in Scotland and Wales, and similar conclusions were reached. The Government are committed to address the full range of issues set out in that document, and we will make a full response to them around the turn of the year.
One of the key conclusions of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health's consultations, however, concerned the need to encourage local flexibility in the delivery of primary care services. This conclusion matches the conclusion of the Government's 1994 Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry".
Therefore, the Government are today publishing a White Paper entitled "Choice and Opportunity" that sets out our proposals for changing NHS legislation to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of NHS primary health care. We intend to introduce a Bill covering these changes at the earliest opportunity.
The proposals do not envisage a new blueprint for NHS primary care. Our approach will be to enable NHS practitioners and local health authorities to develop new ways in which to deliver and improve primary care. Participation will be voluntary, and practitioners who wish to do so will be able to continue to practise under existing arrangements.
In the case of general medical and dental practitioners, the legislation envisaged in the White Paper will allow practitioners and health authorities to propose pilots to test the practical implications of different types of contract. For GPs, these might include practice-based contracts, recognising the important part which nurses and therapists play within the primary health care team. Alternatively, they may involve GPs working as salaried employees, freeing them from the task of running a practice to concentrate on clinical work.
For GP practices that do not wish to pilot new forms of contract, but seek ways of developing services within the existing contractual framework, our proposals will provide health authorities and boards with greater freedom to reward GPs who offer an enhanced service to their patients.
Dentists will also have the opportunity to pilot new approaches to the delivery of care. These might include local contracts to provide greater incentives for offering treatment in areas of greatest need; new ways of ensuring accessibility to services; or contracts for groups of practices.
If pilots are successful, it will be possible to implement more widely the approaches that have been tested in this way. But we must be sure that, in testing new approaches, we do not lose the best of the existing arrangements. Pilots will be monitored and the results will be evaluated.
One principle will be inviolate. Services provided by practitioners in any pilot approved under this legislation will be provided on NHS terms. Family doctor services will remain free at the point of use. Dental services will be subject to the same charging regime as other general dental practitioner services. Patients will retain the same registration rights as at present.
My hon. Friend the Minister's consultations highlighted the potential for community pharmacists to play a greater part in encouraging the better use of medicines, giving advice to the public and health promotion. The White Paper sets out proposals to remove the legal restrictions that prevent health authorities and boards from rewarding community pharmacists who provide a higher standard of service to their patients.
The legislation will also introduce greater flexibility for health authorities and boards in purchasing community pharmacy and optometry services, and resolve an anomaly which prevents NHS community pharmacies from providing certain services for patients who live just over the border in a neighbouring health authority or board area. The proposals will not affect dispensing services and patients will still have the right to take NHS prescriptions to the community pharmacy of their choice.
Finally, the legislation will address a long-standing problem with the appointment of GPs to practices by implementing the recommendation in the chief medical officer's report "Maintaining Medical Excellence" that appointments to single-handed practices should be made only where at least one candidate meets the standards set out in the job description.
Our primary care system is the envy of the world. These proposals support and build on that success story. There is no single template; our aim is to provide choice and opportunity for those GPs and dentists who want to develop and improve services to pilot their ideas. All our proposals rely on the commitment and enthusiasm of


health care professionals who have played a leading part in their development. We look forward to continuing to work closely with them as we take forward this agenda.

Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome some of the specific proposals in the White Paper. Everyone will welcome the removal of the requirement to make an appointment to a single-handed practice, no matter how bad the applicant, and will be astonished that it has taken so long to put that absurdity right.
We welcome the Secretary of State's rediscovery of the importance of cottage and community hospitals and the particular role that they can play in helping patients to recover from major surgery. Will he therefore explain why the Government have closed 245 such hospitals in the past five years? We welcome the proposals for salaried GPs employed, for example, by NHS community trusts, and particularly those proposals to help to solve the acute problem of GP recruitment in inner city areas.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's sudden and apparent conversion to the vital principle of equity in the NHS. In appendix A of the White Paper he writes:
It will be important not to create inequity of resources for patients of different practices.
I quite agree. Where, then, has he been these past five years when so many of the changes made by the Government have quite deliberately created inequity in the NHS? Does he now realise that the creation of two tiers of service for patients is unacceptable in a comprehensive national service? Does the Secretary of State accept what Derek Smith, chairman of King's Healthcare, said on 25 July—that a two-tier health service is now "an everyday reality"? How can the Secretary of State have woken up so belatedly to the reality of what is happening in the delivery of health care?
In relation to dentistry, paragraph 4.7 of the White Paper says:
patients should continue to have a right to choose the dental practitioner from whom to receive dental treatment".
Does the Secretary of State not recognise, however, that for many people national health service dentistry has in a very real sense ceased to exist altogether? Does not this reveal that what he is doing in much of the document is starting to repair some of the damage that the Government have caused in the first place? It is a bit like an arsonist saying sorry and starting to rebuild the very house that he has destroyed. Is not the whole document an admission that single practice fundholding is not necessarily the panacea that the Government have always claimed it to be?
Does the Secretary of State realise that, this afternoon, the Government have for the first time recognised that GP commissioning is happening and is providing real benefits to GPs and patients alike? Will he now embrace Labour party policy on GP commissioning as the way forward?
One proposal in the document fills Opposition Members with particular alarm. Paragraph 2.4 talks of
a salaried option for GPs, either within partnerships or with other bodies
Paragraph 8 of appendix A states:
Ordinary contracts would be used when services were provided outside the NHS".

Does not that reveal that the Government's real agenda is allowing primary care GP services to be provided by private commercial companies? Would not the proposal tear at the very roots of the public service ethos of general practice?
The GP service, with its fierce independent professionalism, has been the foundation stone of the NHS for 50 years. The relationship between GP and patient has been uniquely important for the British health system, but that relationship will be fundamentally undermined if GPs are employed and their services provided by private sector companies ranging from pharmaceuticals to supermarkets. The professional integrity of the GP must be sustained and the Government's proposal puts it at risk.
We applaud the Secretary of State's conversion to the cause of equity, to the importance of cottage hospitals, to the need to solve the problems of the inner cities and to the value of GP commissioning, but I urge him to think again before he goes down the road to a privatised commercialised GP service. Opposition Members want none of it.

Mr. Dorrell: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I believe that in an earlier brief he was told to think the unthinkable. I am not sure that he was regarded as a great success there; I hope that he will prove to be a more flexible thinker about health policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me first about equity of resources. Listening to him, it was hard to remember that it was this Government who introduced the weighted capitation system, precisely to ensure that the historically inequitable distribution of resources as between one part of the country and another was remedied. It is this Government who, every year since the implementation of the reformed health service management structure, have moved the funding of the health service closer to the targets provided by that weighted capitation formula.
So I do not accept for one moment the idea that we have not, consistently and in practice, been interested in dealing equitably with the resources of the health service, directing them to the areas of greatest health need. Indeed, this was one of the very subjects that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health discussed in the primary care listening exercise: to ensure that resources in the primary care world flowed in a more equitable direction. That was one of the principal objectives of the more flexible management system that I have described and which we are committed to introducing.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about cottage hospitals. Of course it is true that hospitals in various parts of the country will open and close facilities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can quote examples of certain hospitals closing when they come to the end of their useful lives. But there are not many Health Secretaries who can report to the House that they have been to Devonshire, or anywhere else, and opened two brand new hospitals on the same day. That is exactly what I did earlier this year.
The Government have been developing new community hospitals, and the fundholding scheme, which the hon. Gentleman loves to hate, has been one of the most effective mechanisms for reopening and underpinning the viability of cottage and community hospitals in the national health service.
That brings me to the principle of GP choice: the choice exercised by the general practitioner as to the best model of care to meet the needs of his or her patients. That is the principle on which this document is based. We look for new ways of delivering high-quality primary care which reflect the ideas of those who have to deliver that care.
The hon. Gentleman's party likes to espouse this cause, but then immediately makes it clear that it would remove from the table the one option that has been chosen by GPs serving 58 per cent. of the patients of this country—namely, the fundholding scheme. How can the hon. Gentleman deploy rhetoric in favour of GP choice while at the same time supporting the abolition of the fundholding scheme that has been chosen by a majority of the GPs of Britain?
Finally, the hon. Gentleman likes to raise the Aunt Sally of privatisation. I made it crystal clear in my statement that I am talking about producing a different way of delivering NHS primary care on the same terms as NHS primary care is currently available—the same charging regime for dentistry, free in general practice. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman this afternoon avoided the simple proposition that the whole of NHS primary care since Nye Bevan's original NHS Act 1946 has been delivered by private contractors responding to contracts with the national health service—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Independent.

Mr. Dorrell: Not all independent. The pharmacist Boots is a profit-making company—

Mr. Morgan: Not private.

Mr. Dorrell: I was under the illusion that it was private. Boots delivers a key NHS service as an NHS pharmacy. It is a contractor delivering an NHS service. So the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is completely wrong to say that these proposals would let the private sector into NHS primary care for the first time. Ironically, the proposals would let trusts, the public sector, into NHS primary care for the first time. Until now, NHS primary care has been the exclusive preserve of private contractors delivering an NHS service in response to an NHS contract. I want to make that contracting regime more flexible, the better to meet the needs of patients.

Dame Jill Knight: Did my right hon. Friend notice an historic, perhaps even unique, event on the radio this morning, when the chairman of the British Medical Association gave his full backing to the White Paper? Is not that a first and does not it make complete nonsense of much of what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)?
Can my right hon. Friend be a little more specific about the services he envisages will be provided by optometrists? He said that he wants shared care and an extension of services for patients.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that it is unusual, if not unique, for me to appear on the "Today" programme alongside Dr. Sandy Macara and receive his unqualified blessing for my

proposals, as I did this morning. I am pleased to say that his support is reflected not just by the British Medical Association but by the British Dental Association and the other professional groups that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health consulted.
The purpose of my hon. Friend's exercise was to develop a consensus in the professions about how primary care can best develop. That was reflected in the document that we published in June and it underlies the legislative proposals that I have announced this afternoon. It would be nice if those on the Opposition Front Bench shared in the consensus with those who are responsible for delivering services to patients.
As for the role of optometrists, there will be major opportunities to integrate optometrists more effectively into the primary care team; to consider the relationship between optometrists and general practitioners to ensure a proper flow of information; and to consider the arrangements for referral from optometry to the secondary care services. Those are the options for the development of optometry in integrated NHS primary health care and we shall cover them in more detail later this year in the document to which I have referred.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course I join the Secretary of State in wanting a higher quality and more accessible health service that is tailored to the needs of different communities. That would be a good step forward. There are, however, differences of view between him, some of his colleagues and people in and outside the House about whether all is right with the health service at the moment, and the changes that are needed.
I ask the Secretary of State for five simple assurances. Can we have the resources that it is objectively agreed the health service needs? Can we have the additional staffing that is regarded as necessary even by independent pay review bodies? Can we have some national co-ordination, which does not currently exist? Given the announcement today in particular, can we have an assurance that the new primary care system will be free from commercial profit-making at the expense of the health service? Can we be assured that companies, whether Tesco or Asda, Tarmac or Wimpey, will not be able to employ people in the health service and make profits for the private sector at the expense of patients?

Mr. David Congdon: What about Boots?

Mr. Hughes: Not Boots, which is a drug company that deals with pharmacists; I mean any company that could employ GPs.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises a huge range of issues that I cannot deal with in any substance in an answer to a question. We shall continue to ensure that the staffing is available to deliver the kind of service we describe. I must point out, as the Prime Minister did a few moments ago, that we have seen a huge growth in NHS staffing since 1979—[Interruption.]—in clinical staffing, and we have also seen a huge increase in the resources available to the health service, including £4.8 billion over and above inflation in this Parliament alone. Staffing and resources continue to be key concerns of any Health Secretary, as does proper co-ordination.
The hon. Gentleman seems to believe, somehow, in a pure service with no profit motive, which is the only sort that he conceives can be of benefit to patients. Life is much more complex than that. Boots delivers an NHS service: the NHS pharmacy service. Boots and every other NHS pharmacist deliver that service for a profit. The independent contractors who deliver NHS general practice also do it for a living—that is to say, for a profit. Drug companies that sell drugs through the dispensing service do it for a profit. I am interested in a proper reward for those who deliver an efficient, high-quality service for the patient. Provided that I am satisfied that those tests are passed, I am willing to consider proposals made with the support of the professional staff concerned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The last hon. Member who put a question asked five questions. That is totally unfair, but I allowed him to do so because he speaks for his party on these matters. That was the only reason. Given the number of hon. Members who seek to put questions on this statement, I cannot be fair and call them if we have long questions and long answers. I am sure that the House will oblige: I want brisk questions and brisk answers.

Sir Roger Sims: As my right hon. Friend will realise, an increasing role will need to be played by nurses, particularly district nurses, health visitors and practice nurses. It is now four years since Parliament approved legislation to enable nurses to prescribe yet we are still waiting for the evaluation of the first pilot sites. Will my right hon. Friend give more priority to nurse prescribing and expedite its implementation?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. Some real benefits can be secured through the extension of nurse prescribing provided that it is done in a properly evaluated and disciplined way. The Government are committed to that process. The practice-based contract concept—one of the specific objectives of this legislation is to allow that concept to be developed—will allow broader scope for nurses to deliver primary care services, subject to proper medical oversight. That will allow the development of the independent professional nursing practice that my hon. Friend seeks. It is an attractive option, but it must be introduced in a properly disciplined and controlled way.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State sought to reassure the House that the Government provide for a fair and equitable distribution of NHS resources through their capitation funding formula, but he has forgotten that that funding formula applies to hospitals, not to primary care, which is the subject of this statement. Is he aware that present funding for Cornwall health authority provides enough money for one GP for every 1,660 people in Cornwall, while the funding for Rotherham provides only for one GP for every 2,250 people? What will he do to distribute primary health care money equitably? If he does not distribute it equitably, all his proposals for buying in care from salaried doctors will mean nothing, because the purchasers of care will not have the money to do it.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to what I said. I specifically said that the

extension of the weighted capitation basis of funding to primary care was one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health raised in the listening exercise and is one of the issues that we are working on.

Mr. David Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the vital importance of GP fundholding to primary care? Is he aware that Bury has one of the largest numbers of fundholders in the country? When I meet those fundholders next month, may I confirm that the reports in the press about a change in Labour party policy are totally untrue, and that the Labour party remains committed to abolishing fundholding and all the services that it provides? In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, that step would do great damage to my constituents.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that today I was given a document entitled "The Labour Party Policy Handbook 1996"—dateline October 1996. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that it is in loose-leaf format, so clearly a certain flexibility is intended. With that caveat, the document—it was published within the last 14 days, so it is hot off the press—says that it is Labour party policy to replace fundholding with GP commissioning. I understand the word "replace" to mean that one thing will take the place of another—in other words, fundholding will be abolished. Every GP fundholder, servicing 58 per cent. of patients in this country, should take that into account as we approach the election. The Labour party would abolish fundholding—the option that has been chosen as being in the interests of 58 per cent. of patients.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Secretary of State assure us that the worrying closures of community pharmacies will cease? Is he aware that pharmacies fear the abolition of retail price maintenance and that I have received many petitions about the matter? Supermarkets can close community pharmacies.

Mr. Dorrell: The question of retail price maintenance falls outside the specific responsibility of the Department of Health, and I do not accept that its abolition has inevitable consequences for the viability of the pharmacy network.
I am committed to the development of NHS pharmacy as a key element of primary health care. One simple statistic makes that clear: 3 million people go to pharmacists every day for some kind of health or health-related product. It is a key element in the primary health care team and in the delivery of an integrated national health service in Britain.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am at least as great a supporter of the purchaser-provider split as Dr. Sandy Macara, but my right hon. Friend may be aware that in west Kent we are suffering badly as a result of the purchasing authority's failure to control the over-expenditure of fundholding GPs. That is seriously damaging the morale of non-fundholding GPs and provider trusts, which are performing extremely well. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to investigate how that situation may be improved in future, and how we may mitigate the damage done so far?

Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly look at the position in Kent, as my hon. Friend has suggested. The responsibility


to live within a fundholder's budget rests primarily with the fundholder rather than with the health authority. If there is a problem with over-spending fundholders in my hon. Friend's constituency, the principal responsibility for addressing it rests with the fundholders. However, I shall examine that issue.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the Government's much-needed U-turn on community hospitals. Does the Secretary of State agree that every town of any size should have a proper, modern community hospital, that that will be facilitated and that the private finance initiative, which has held back many community hospital schemes, will not be used in that way any longer? Local authorities should be allowed to proceed without going down that delaying route.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The PFI does not hold back community and cottage hospitals: it is the means by which community and cottage hospital projects may go ahead, if there is demand in the area, without having to wait for the capital flow to be approved by the Department of Health and the collective processes of Government.
As to the hon. Gentleman's allegation that this is a U-turn, the most powerful weapon for re-establishing and expanding support for community and cottage hospitals in Britain is the GP fundholding scheme that the Government introduced in 1991. Fundholders, acting on behalf of their patients, have made it clear that they want local community hospitals and are prepared to be involved in the management of medical cover within those hospitals in order to ensure more local care delivery to their patients. That approach is dead right, and I am happy to endorse it.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I practised as a physician in the national health service for a number of years. However, he may not be aware that I was on the receiving end of NHS services for much of the recess and thus was able to do a good deal of consumer research. Apart from the superb accident and emergency and in-patient treatment that I received, the most profound and agreeable aspect of my treatment—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Private.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: NHS, and it always has been for every member of my family. There was superb liaison between GPs, district and community nurses and pharmacists—it could not be better. Is that not an example of Conservative policies raising the level of service for the benefit of the whole community?

Mr. Dorrell: I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend back from whatever problem he encountered. He is a clear example of the NHS having worked successfully. I am pleased also to be able to congratulate him on his recovery. His experience—the service he received—is the experience of the huge majority of NHS patients. People regularly say, "I have been lucky." But people who receive high-quality care from the NHS are not lucky; it is the overwhelming experience of the majority of NHS patients.
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in recording the fact that the care delivered by today's practitioners and professional staff within the NHS is without historical parallel. It is better than it has ever been. It is the Government's determination that it should continue to get better. We shall continue to give those within the NHS the tools to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a clear distinction between those who have treatment in the NHS and praise the nurses and the doctors for helping them to get well, and those who take a political stance in the knowledge that, after 17 years of Tory rule, NHS staff are fed up with the way in which the Government are ruining the health service?
Is it not true that most cottage hospitals have been turned into private nursing homes to be run by friends of the Tory party? It is a licence to print money. There are more beds in private nursing homes than there are in the entire NHS. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. Dorrell: It is certainly true that we have seen a huge growth in the number of care beds for the elderly in private nursing and residential homes. We know that 80 per cent. of them are supported by public funds. There is a delivery of quality care to elderly people which was undreamed of 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman should talk to the staff of the NHS. He will find that the huge majority of them are proud of the service that they deliver. Of course they want to deliver more service, but they recognise that the service that they have been delivering has been developing and growing and treating more patients year by year since 1979. They deliver and they know that it is a growing service.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having had to use the services of a non-fundholding practice during the summer recess on two occasions, may I vouch for the excellent quality and speed of service that such practices provide? Having visited a community pharmacy at its request to see the valuable job that it does, may I endorse what has been said about the vital part that such pharmacies play in the community?
To pick up the point of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about the problems that they will encounter as a result of the activities of the superstores—may I say that I have managed to obtain the services of a salaried dentist for my constituency, there having been inadequate NHS dentistry?—I can vouch for the flexibility of the NHS, which appears to be the main feature of my right hon. Friend's statement. Am I right in saying that the Government have pledged to spend more on the NHS above the rate of inflation for every year that we Conservatives are in government after the next election?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right in almost everything that he has said. In particular, he is right to say that we are committed to continue to support a growing and more flexible health service. As he rightly said, flexibility is the main purport of the proposals that I have announced this afternoon.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I endorse the comments about community pharmacies, which want to play a bigger role. The Minister has said, "if pilots are successful". He has said also that they will be monitored and


the results will be evaluated.
Is that an admission that, at an earlier stage of reform of the NHS, pilot studies were not evaluated and that we went down the road of reform far too fast without having the facts before us? Is a plea being made for more certainty on this occasion?

Mr. Dorrell: When we introduced pilot fundholding in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, a number of general practitioners who saw the fundholding scheme in operation decided that they wanted to join it. They saw how they could deliver best care to their patients. That was their evidence. The numbers have grown, and now 58 per cent. of patients are covered by the fundholding scheme. I regard pilot fundholding as having succeeded.
The majority of GPs now want to apply the scheme to the benefit of their patients. I have set out in my statement the way in which we intend to pilot a range of different contracting models to ascertain which ones best deliver the claims made for them. What we shall probably find, I suspect, is that some will work in some areas and others will work in other areas and people will learn by the experience of having piloted them.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate GP fundholders, such as Dr. Brian Golden in my constituency, who have used the opportunities presented by fundholding to perform many more minor operations in the surgery rather than the hospital; who have widened the number of clinics on offer; and who have substantially reduced waiting lists? Is this not the sort of progress that most people welcome, even if the Opposition want to get rid of it?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on every count. Fundholding has been a huge success. That is not to undermine the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—that there are plenty of high-quality GPs who choose not to be fundholders.

Mr. Kevin Barron: What about the 42 per cent?

Mr. Dorrell: I was just talking about them, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in silence for a moment.
There are non-fundholding GPs who also deliver high-quality service—that is perfectly true—but fundholders have been at the cutting edge of the changes in the relationship between primary and secondary care, and some of them have delivered stunning improvements in the quality of care that they deliver to their patients.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Secretary of State agree that one service that GPs need to retain is the right to send patients to the hospital of their choice? What will he do about the right and the choice of GPs who want to send their patients to the Hillingdon hospital trust if they happen to be over 75 years of age? What choice will GPs in Halifax have to send patients to the new hospital when it is built and the number of beds is reduced from 850 to 500? Will that be a cut-off point based on age?

Mr. Dorrell: The position in Hillingdon is that the patients who are being talked about are those who live in

the environs of Mount Vernon hospital, for whom there is an elderly assessment unit at that hospital. If local GPs want to shift the resources and the service from Mount Vernon to Hillingdon, that is something that they can negotiate, but it does not make much sense to provide the facility at Mount Vernon and send the patients to Hillingdon. That is the proposition that we are asked to endorse this afternoon, and frankly it seems to me to be pretty silly.
In terms of GP choice, the best way for a GP to ensure that he or she can refer his or her patients to the hospital of choice is by becoming a fundholder, because a fundholder is free to place the contract with whichever hospital they choose. If a GP is not a fundholder, every health authority is under an obligation to discuss with its GPs where facilities are provided. On other occasions, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is very fond of pointing out that there is a range of different models for consulting GPs, between the health authority and GPs, which have grown up throughout the country and are not fundholding. Fundholding gives the doctor the right to decide all these other models, which the hon. Gentleman quite rightly on other occasions—

Ms Tessa Jowell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady cannot just dismiss them, because all her friends on the Labour Front Bench like to talk these schemes up. There seems to be a bit of a muddle about what Labour policy is. These commissioning schemes allow GPs to be consultees, whereas fundholding allows them to decide it for themselves.

Mr. Congdon: May I welcome the extra flexibility that the White Paper provides for community pharmacists, whether they make a profit or whether they are Boots? Does my right hon. Friend agree that community pharmacists often provide a valuable service to people whether or not they have recently visited their local GP? Will he consider further measures to extend the range of drugs that pharmacists can dispense without prescription?

Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, that matter is subject to constant review. It is important that drugs that do not need, from a medical safety point of view, the control of prescription access should not be on that list when they do not need to be. That is subject to regular review, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish those decisions to be made on anything other than medical safety grounds.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not unfortunate that a significant proportion of resources provided by health authorities are now based on deficit and debt? Is the Minister aware that his departmental answer to me of 22 July refused to provide figures showing the degree of NHS debt on the basis that they were not suitable for publication? He has not, as he knows, replied to my letter on that subject of 31 July. Will he be present himself in the House tomorrow evening to answer an Adjournment debate on both those particulars of failure?

Mr. Dorrell: I cannot undertake to be present in the House to respond to the debate, but I shall undertake to ensure that I know what will be said before it is said.

Mr. Max Madden: What proposals are contained in the White Paper for tackling the drugs


crisis now gripping much of Britain, including our inner cities, particularly with regard to the national provision of drug treatment centres and guidance to GPs and pharmacies to prescribe methadone, thereby reducing hard drug dependency?

Mr. Dorrell: The range of services provided to people suffering from drug abuse is subject to national monitoring and some national guidance in ten-ns of protocols and the kind of services which are most effective. Evidence is collected nationally, but it is far better that the service should be designed locally. The more flexible contracting regime which will be delivered by the proposals may well have a significant role in ensuring that we are better able to meet the needs of the type of patient whom the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. John Gunnell: What new money goes with these proposals? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell us that he will legislate as soon as possible, but what new money, not in the health service already, will accompany the proposals, which clearly depend upon adequate resources?

Mr. Dorrell: I have not come to make an announcement about money this afternoon; I have come to make an announcement about proposals for legislative change. But if the Government's record is anything to go by, it will be a lot more than £100 million.

Mr. Richard Burden: The announcement has some welcome aspects, but initiatives in primary care are unlikely to be effective if they are grafted on to a system of contracting that encourages short-term thinking when already too many community services do not know what they are doing from one year to the next. Will the Secretary of State review the time scales of contracts so that we have proper commissioning rather than short-term fixing year on year?
With regard to money. may I press the right hon. Gentleman on one specific issue? Appendix A refers to money for the pilots being ring-fenced. Is that new money and, whether or not it is, how much will be ring-fenced?

Mr. Dorrell: It is not new money and does not need to be new money, because we are talking about the delivery of primary care services to existing patients with existing practitioners. We are talking about ring-fencing the existing pool system for the remuneration of doctors and dentists so that the individual doctor and dentist does not have his remuneration undermined or distorted by the development of the pilots. That is what ring-fencing means in that context.
The hon. Gentleman repeats the assertion that the Government are in favour of short-term annual contracts. We have said repeatedly, and I said it again in May this year when I published some material on improving the efficiency of NHS bureaucracy, that I am in favour of a medium-term perspective in the contracts. I certainly am not in favour of an artificial requirement that every contract should be placed for one year. That never has been the Government's policy, however often it is asserted from the Opposition Benches that it is.

Mr. William O'Brien: What advice does the Secretary of State have for GPs who are concerned

that there is a shortage of acute beds in hospitals for the mentally ill, particularly in the Wakefield area, where the Secretary of State knows that the amalgamation of two hospitals will reduce the number of acute beds?

Mr. Dorrell: I have repeatedly made it clear, and it is being delivered by the NHS, that we need to deliver acute hospital beds for those who are acutely mentally ill, just as we need to deliver acute hospital beds for those who are acutely physically ill. I am not in favour of continuing to provide many long-stay isolated mental illness beds in traditional mental illness hospitals when better models of care are available which provide proper support in the community, nursing home support for people who need nursing homes and a range of other facilities, but, where people need acute mental illness beds, those are being provided, often in acute mental illness units that have been the result of the investment boom of which the Pritne Minister spoke when answering questions earlier.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Secretary of State has said that he praised fundholders, but in our region we have evidence of fundholders refusing to put old people on their practice lists. In fact, they are not even refusing them. They are throwing them off the list and other doctors who are not fundholders are having to pick them up. That is not good enough, and will the Secretary of State do something about it?

Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Gentleman made that accusation with a name attached to it outside the House, it would be a serious charge of professional misconduct.

Mr. Campbell: I will bring the case to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman should indeed bring the case to me, because, if he does so, he will find it referred to the General Medical Council for unethical conduct.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my local district general hospital, the Lancaster royal infirmary, will shortly be the first hospital to incorporate a dedicated blood transfusion service? Will he consider doing us the honour of opening it?

Mr. Dorrell: I should be delighted to respond to an invitation that my hon. Friend presses on me and I hope that it will be possible to fit it into my schedule.

Madam Speaker: That was not referred to in the statement that I heard.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to apologise to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in Britain who are deprived of primary dental care? In my constituency, a small group in the town of Milford Haven have had to band together and hire a mini-van to transport themselves 30 miles to a dentist who will treat them. That is not uncommon throughout rural Wales. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that his measures in the White Paper will deal with that major problem—in one constituency in north Wales, there is no NHS dentist at


all—and that we can return to the position 10 years ago when, in my constituency, every dentist was providing NHS care, whereas now we have only three?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield says that he already has a salaried dentist in his constituency. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) asks that we return to the position of 10 or perhaps 17 years ago. He would like to return to the position 17 years ago in NHS dentistry. That would mean a reduction of roughly one third in the number of NHS courses of dental treatment delivered.

Mr. Ainger: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dorrell: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Adult courses of dentistry received and paid for in NHS terms have risen from 17 million in 1979 to just short of 25 million in 1995. That is an increase in NHS dentistry activity of 46 per cent. It is an inconvenient fact, given the sort of assertions that the hon. Gentleman likes to make. I would not argue—I do not argue—that there are no problems in NHS dentistry. That is why we are introducing the proposals to make the system more flexible, but the hon. Gentleman should not assert that NHS dentistry is in retreat—

Mr. Ainger: It is.

Mr. Dorrell: It is no good saying that it is. I have quoted the facts to the hon. Gentleman. The facts are that there were 17 million courses of treatment in the time that he referred to as a golden age and that there are 25 million courses of treatment now.

Mr. John Battle: I do not know where the Secretary of State gets his facts, but many of my constituents cannot get an NHS dentist because the NHS dentists have pulled out and gone private. How will the White Paper help those constituents? Is not this word "choice", which Ministers utter, an increasingly empty word that means the Hobson's choice of going without because, in practice, NHS dentistry has been privatised?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have shown clearly that it is not true to say that NHS dentistry is being privatised. I acknowledge that there are problems with the provision of NHS dentistry, which is why we have introduced these proposals to make the regime under which NHS dentistry is provided more flexible and to allow health authorities to target resources on areas where there is a problem with access.
Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced changes in the remuneration of dentists under the present contractual arrangements. Resources will be targeted specifically on dental services for children to ensure that that provision receives priority. We are responding to problems of access to NHS dentistry as they arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred to another example of how that is being done.
Neither of the assertions of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is true. It is not true to say that NHS dentistry is a service in retreat. It is true to say that there are some problems, but we are dealing with them.

Madam Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make on a matter of privilege. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has written to me about information that came to light during the parliamentary recess alleging that, in 1994, improper pressure was brought to bear on the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I am satisfied that the matter should have the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. The hon. Member is thus entitled to table a motion for consideration by the House as its first business tomorrow at 3.30 pm.

Class Size (Reduction)

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the numbers of children taught in classes in schools.
My Bill would set a limit of no more than 30 children in any class in any school within the next five years. It would review ways of achieving smaller classes for children who have special educational needs—physical or psychological—or who are learning English as a second language or who have very low attainment levels.
Why is the Bill needed? According to official figures, 40 per cent. of primary school age children in England are being taught in classes of more than 30, and the percentage is worsening. In January 1995, 1.6 million primary school children were in classes of more than 30, which is a 7 per cent. increase on the previous year and a 24 per cent. increase since 1991. The number of classes with more than 40 children has risen even faster—27 per cent. in the year to January 1995—to 18,000. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says:
average class sizes in primary schools are rapidly increasing.
Primary class sizes in England are now among the least favourable in OECD countries, and the gap is getting wider.
There are 400,000 secondary school pupils in classes of more than 30. Class sizes are rising in that sector too. Since the mid-1980s, secondary schools have lost more than one in five of their mathematics and English teachers. The Observerof 1 Sept this year noted that despite the fact that the school age population is set to rise this year by 100,000, the Department for Education and Employment plans to recruit only 85 more teachers. Each year since 1992, the intake of new primary school teachers has fallen. There is a shortfall of 2,000 teachers in the secondary sector if the Government's own targets are to be met, so there is a looming crisis in mathematics, science and English teaching.
The Department for Education and Employment continues to claim that there is no teacher shortage and refuses to acknowledge the effect of class sizes on children's attainment. Meanwhile, more than one third of 14-year-olds are not mastering basic mathematics, English or science, and one in six adults has severe difficulty with literacy and numeracy.
The evidence shows the advantage of smaller class sizes. Despite the Government's refusal to sponsor detailed research studies, several such studies have been undertaken which clearly show that the smaller the class size the better the performance of pupils. STAR, the student-teacher ratio project in Tennessee, found that
pupils in small classes consistently out performed pupils in larger classes
and that
children from deprived backgrounds benefited the most from learning in this environment.
Mortimore and Blatchford concluded that smaller classes led to greater progress in reading and mathematics for eight-year-olds. They said that the results of smaller classes were "impressive and consistent". There appears to be particular advantage for pupils from ethnic minorities. In addition, the benefits are long-lasting.
Studies show that schoolchildren taught in smaller classes were still benefiting at the age of 12. Mortimore and Blatchford state that, in direct contradiction to Ministers' pronouncements that class sizes are unimportant, it can justifiably be said that it is incorrect to state that there is no proven connection between class size and attainment.
Ofsted's report, "Class Size and the Quality of Education", in November last year said:
small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education.
It added:
pupils with special needs frequently make greater progress when they are taught in smaller classes.
Ofsted maintained that teaching methods were more important for attainment than class sizes, but Maurice Galton, writing in the Educational Review in the summer, made clear that the two are linked. He said:
Challenging high levels of interaction, involving in particular challenging questioning and feedback, are crucial determinants of pupil progress.
High levels of interaction can be best achieved in smaller classes.
The National Commission on Education's report, "Learning to Succeed", said that, within five years, no primary school child should be in a class of more than 30. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations supports a class size limit of 30. Private schools have pupil-teacher ratios of 10:6. They clearly regard low class sizes as important. There is much evidence to support the need for low class sizes.
What would be the cost of my proposal? Based on the recent survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research, 6,000 more teachers would be needed to cover 39,385 classes. That would cost £156 million. The assisted places scheme will cost £161 million by 1998. By phasing that scheme out over five years, all class sizes could be reduced to a maximum of 30 in the same period. To quote the slogan of the Tory party conference, that would mean opportunity for all. Alternatively, the cost could be met by reducing wasteful spending in other Ministries.
Ofsted has suggested that reducing class sizes would cost an enormous sum—more than £500 million. It included in its calculation large extra transport costs and additional accommodation requirements. Such costs have not been incurred as class sizes have risen, so why should they be taken into account when numbers fall to earlier class size ratios? Ofsted's figures are a crude and unsubstantiated guesstimate. They are much less worked out than those of the National Foundation for Educational Research, which stands by its calculations.
There has been virtually no detailed research in the past decade into relevant class sizes in secondary schools. Most studies have concentrated on primary teaching. Although I acknowledge that that sector is vital for imparting learning skills, smaller class sizes would also benefit secondary school pupils. There is a widespread assumption of failure; that many in the secondary sector are already lost to education. That assumption should not be accepted. There are fewer large classes in secondary schools than there are in primary schools, so the cost of achieving the 30 limit in the secondary sector would be low. Education strategies concentrate on early schooling


and better training after leaving school. Ensuring low class sizes would fill the gap by improving learning in secondary schools, too.
I turn to the Labour party's commitment. While the Government are letting class sizes rise inexorably, claiming that it does not matter, the Labour party is pledging as a manifesto commitment to bring class sizes down to 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds. That commitment is important and most welcome, but I consider it too cautious. It would not cover all primary or any secondary school pupils. Like my Labour party colleagues, I want to take forward the debate on better education. Much of the brouhaha over teaching methods is a smokescreen. That is not to say that such methods are unimportant—they are. However, they are also a cover-up for cost reduction. They are used to avoid consideration of the consequences of rising class sizes.
Most teachers are working longer hours —in primary schools two hours a week, and in secondary schools 1.4 hours a week longer than two years ago. Many teachers have been sacked or replaced by less experienced, less costly ones due to Government education cuts. Exclusions have soared: in 1993–94 there were 11,181. Greater pressure on teachers as a result of less controllable, larger classes is a factor in that.
There has also been a chronic lack of investment in school buildings and books. Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools recently reported that 3,700 schools do not have enough books. Last year, investment in buildings amounted to only £69 per pupil in state schools—it was £551 per pupil in private schools. In addition to those factors, larger class sizes is a key indicator of the extent of this Conservative Government's neglect of our schools. Rising class sizes is both a symptom and a cause of the crisis in our schools. My Bill attempts to stop the rot.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I oppose the Bill, but not because my hon. Friends and I are against smaller class sizes in schools—far from it. The Government have an excellent record on reducing class sizes—indeed, class sizes are now smaller than they were when this Conservative Government were first elected.
My concern about the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is that it is a red herring—or, perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's case, a very old Labour herring. The Bill does not tackle what is the largest problem in our schools and what should be even the hon. Gentleman's first priority—the quality of education provided for pupils. The Bill will not improve the excellence of the teaching, or the results achieved by students. Class size has little influence on those, as has been confirmed many times by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. Proof of that is easily found in other countries. In Japan, class sizes for mathematics are generally much larger than in our schools, yet pupil attainment is better in all age groups in Japanese schools than in England.
Although reducing class sizes is desirable, it should not be the first priority, which is to raise standards in our schools. Teacher training and parental choice are much more important in achieving that. The hon. Member for Leyton proposes paying for smaller class sizes by using

the money currently used for the assisted places scheme. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that scheme, even though it increases parental choice and gives opportunities to children from less well-off families who will benefit from the sort of education the independent sector can provide. However, the hon. Gentleman is also mistaken in his sums.
If the assisted places scheme were done away with, the pupils currently benefiting from it would have to be found places in the state sector. That, in itself, would push up class sizes in the short term. In addition, providing those extra school places would cost more than three quarters of the money saved by the abolition of assisted places. The remaining quarter—which, by the most generous estimate, would amount only to some £60 million by the time the Bill came into effect—would not be sufficient to fund the reduction in class sizes. As the hon. Member for Leyton admitted, he has overlooked the additional cost of providing new classrooms, which would add greatly to the overall bill.
A more realistic estimate of the cost of reducing class sizes in the way the hon. Member for Leyton proposes would be £180 million—three times the Labour party's figure. The hon. Gentleman's proposal, far from being self-financing, would require well in excess of £120 million to be raised from the taxpayer to pay for it.
Another reason why I oppose the Bill is that I wish to save the hon. Member for Leyton from himself. All hon. Members are very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes around proposing tax increases—as he clearly did in his speech—he will draw down on himself the wrath of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). No hon. Member could bear the painful sight of the hon. Member for Leyton being disciplined by the shadow Chancellor. For that reason, if for no other, I urge him not to proceed with his Bill. His many friends on this side of the House fear for his safety if he does proceed with it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Harry Barnes. Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Mike Gapes, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Mr. David Winnick.

CLASS SIZE (REDUCTION)

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the numbers of children taught in classes in schools: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

DEFENCE ESTIMATES

[SECOND DAY]

[Relevant document: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1995–96, entitled 'Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996', House of Commons Paper No. 215.]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [14 October]:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996 contained in Cm. 3223.

Which amendment was: to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996; condemns the instability caused to Britain's armed forces by Government mismanagement; recognises that the UK defence industry is a strategic national asset in both defence and economic terms; notes that the shortfall in the strength of the British Army numbers 4000 personnel; is concerned that the resulting overstretch is undermining the morale and operational effectiveness of the armed forces; condemns the manner in which the defence forces and defence industry are being run down in an ad hoc and piecemeal way; recognises that the armed forces and defence industry require a long-term strategic overview which can only be achieved through the establishment of a strategic defence review; condemns the continued financial waste and mismanagement by Ministers; urges the Government to take action to address the world landmine crisis and to ban the export, import and transfer of all forms of anti-personnel landmine; urges a positive approach to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty negotiations; and congratulates the work carried out by British forces in the defence of Britain and her interests in helping to maintain international stability in peacekeeping operations throughout the world'—[Dr. David Clark.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): It is an honour for me to continue this debate on the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Before I do so, I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has today announced that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of General Sir Charles Guthrie as Chief of the Defence Staff, in succession to Field Marshall Sir Peter Inge, in April 1997.
As the Government's principal military adviser, the post of Chief of the Defence Staff requires an individual with personal qualities and abilities of the highest order. As he has demonstrated throughout his long and distinguished career, General Guthrie has enormous ability, admirable personal skills and a tremendous record of service experience and leadership, and is much admired throughout the armed forces. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in congratulating General Guthrie and in wishing him well when he takes up this appointment.
In his opening speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stressed the importance of our continuing drive to achieve value for money in defence, concentrating resources on the front line, arid of our support for the front line. Today's armed forces face new challenges. We are in an era when, as the late Manfred Woerner once said:
We have less threat, but less peace.

More than ever, the services must be extremely flexible and very resilient, with highly capable equipment.
The major investment in equipment made by the Government means that our forces have never been better equipped to meet that challenge. Already in service is equipment such as the Sandown single role minehunter, and such equipment is a world leader in its class. The AS90 self-propelled gun is another world leader, and the Harrier family of aircraft is still the most potent of its type in existence. The decisions that we have made in the past 18 months will add enormously to our ability to deploy our forces flexibly and with great power across the range of scenarios that they may have to face in the future.
We are fully committed to maintaining the worldwide reputation of our services for professionalism and excellence. The quality of our people is undoubted, and, wherever they serve, their skills are acknowledged by allies and by new partners in central and eastern Europe. I pay tribute to all the men and women who serve in our armed forces—whether in the tragic ruins of what was once Yugoslavia, the windswept landscape of the Falkland Islands, the heat of the Gulf or the streets of Northern Ireland. They require and deserve no less than the best equipment that can be provided to meet their needs.
That policy allows them not only to perform the demanding tasks we require of them efficiently and effectively, but can mean the difference between life and death. It is because of the importance that we attach to the equipping of our forces that I wish to devote this speech to our procurement policies and to the vision we have for procurement in the future.
Since the early 1980s, we have seen a revolution in our procurement practices. Chief among those was the adoption of an aggressive competition policy, placing contracts on the basis of best overall value for money. That policy has benefited the taxpayer, the services and, in world markets, British industry. Reviewing those initiatives in its report "Procurement in the 90s", the National Audit Office concluded that our systems were
essentially sound and compare well with defence organisations overseas".
The House will he aware that, earlier this year, we responded positively to the report entitled "Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy" by a joint Select Committee on defence and trade and industry matters. In parallel, my Department carried out its own review of its procurement policies. At the heart of our study was a concern that the unbridled pursuit of competition without regard to the supplier base might, over time, threaten both the capacity and the capability of the UK defence industry.
It is self-evident that, if we are to continue to benefit from our competition policy, we have a vested interest in ensuring that our supplier base is efficient, effective and capable of meeting our needs—not only in the short but in the longer term.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The Ministry of Defence has given a contract to Racal for radar, and there has been a great deal of disappointment not only in my constituency but in the Lothians generally. That is particularly true because GEC Marconi, through its purchase of Ferranti, has been the leader in radar


equipment for Her Majesty's forces. Is it possible that Racal got the contract because it gave money to the Conservative party?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's stalwart work on behalf of his constituency, I am a bit disappointed that he mentions the treatment of a distinguished defence company in that manner. He implies that those who advise the Ministry of Defence are no more capable of distinguishing proper from improper behaviour than he suggests Ministers are. That is an unworthy suggestion, although I do not think that it is one that he would normally make. I hope that he will reconsider it.
We concluded that value for money should remain the cornerstone of UK procurement policy, and we concluded that competition was critical to the achievement of that objective. We are committed to the benefits of competition, unlike the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). After his speech last night, I am particularly pleased, and a bit surprised, to see him in the House today.
Competition has inspired innovative design and manufacturing change, driven down prices and improved the performance of defence equipment. By encouraging industry to be more efficient, competition has enhanced the competitiveness of UK industry abroad and has contributed significantly to sales success in foreign markets. In itself, that is a positive contribution to sustaining our defence industrial capabilities.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the Ministry of Defence any plans to order replacement vessels for that section of the fleet that is, by and large, concerned with fishery protection duties? Does not the Minister agree that the crews of those vessels perform sterling work, but that in some instances they are crewing aging vessels?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I should like to write to him in detail. That would be a more satisfactory way of responding than answering off the cuff.
We also concluded that we should give more systematic consideration to defence industrial factors in reaching future procurement decisions. We have always taken industrial factors into account in our procurement processes, but we concluded that we needed a more systematic approach, defining more explicitly the criteria against which we assess the benefit of seeking to retain defence industrial capability. We have carried that work forward with the Department of Trade and Industry in recent months, and the equipment announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July are testimony to the extent to which we have embraced that approach.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the Minister saying that, with their new definition of interest, the Government are recognising at last that the market cannot rule on defence procurement, not only because Governments are the major purchasers, but because

British industry and much of European industry would otherwise be swamped by competition from the United States?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I said that we had always taken industrial factors into account, but that we needed to do so more systematically. Before the hon. Gentleman attacks the benefits and consequences of market forces too strongly, perhaps he ought to clear his remarks with his own Front Benchers, and with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
Our approach, along with our continued pursuit of the more commercial procurement policies which have proved so successful in past, will ensure that we can provide our armed forces with capable equipment which represents real value for money. However, we are never complacent, and our procurement practices continue to evolve.
For example, we spend some £1 billion a year on high-volume, low-value items—mainly spare parts—with a large number of firms. That carries a disproportionately large administrative cost compared with the value of the items. We are therefore changing the purchasing process to cut out much of the paper-driven bureaucracy. In particular, in line with best practice in industry, we shall introduce electronic data interchange to handle all the activities between ordering and bill payment.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the subject of the procurement of sophisticated equipment, I should like to remind him that, 20 years ago, it was decided that three shipbuilders—Vickers, Cammell Laird and Vosper Thorneycroft—should be designated warship builders. In recent years, we have come dangerously near the point at which only one shipbuilder is available. The contract for Fearless and Intrepid was dealt with on a NAPNOC—no acceptable price, no contract—basis. Does my hon. Friend have a view on the ideal number of shipbuilders which should be available to undertake large, sophisticated shipbuilding?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am pleased to say that we continue to have a good, competitive shipbuilding market in this country. My hon. Friend implies that the award of the type 23 frigate order to Yarrow may undermine competition in our shipbuilding market. We do not consider that to be true. We have every confidence that Vosper Thomycroft, for example, will continue to be a strong and vibrant shipbuilder able to offer competition into the next millennium. That is why it is part of the consortium to produce the common new generation frigate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will regard that as good news for his constituency and for the interests of defence.
We obviously need to work closely with industry to ensure that we can exchange and share data to our mutual benefit. That will help the introduction of new initiatives such as concurrent engineering on programmes, for which we are seeking to cut the time scales in our procurement process without increasing the risks to the Ministry of Defence.
Over the past year, the Ministry has been working with the Confederation of British Industry to formulate guidelines on how a system of partnering might work in Ministry of Defence procurement, allowing both sides to respond to change, to benefit from innovation, to minimise costs and to maximise service development.
We shall also test all capital expenditure against the framework of the private finance initiative. We do not have no-go areas, and no minimum level of expenditure is set. Inevitably, not all projects will be suitable for the PFI approach, but the Government and industry are interested in exploring options. Deals covered by the initiative worth more than £200 million have already been signed, and £2 billion-worth of further projects is being considered.
The world strategic situation has changed beyond recognition in recent years, and no less is true of the defence industry. Defence remains big business, but defence expenditure cannot support all the manufacturing capacity or jobs that it once did. Industry has had to adapt to a much reduced global market for its products. It must compete ever more vigorously to survive, with new players in the international market seeking the same goals.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves the issue of the global market, I should like to ask whether he intends to say anything about the policy on land mines. Does he recognise that General Sir Hugh Beach made a powerful case to the all-party land mine group that any mines exported should be of the detectable type, not the relatively undetectable mines which anaesthetise huge areas of agricultural land in the poorest countries of the world?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree that mines should be detectable. We should like any land mines which continue to exist to be of the self-destructing sort, so that they do not pose the dangers to civilian populations which we have seen throughout the world. That is one reason why we have been in the forefront in providing money—nearly £20 million—for the clearance of land mines throughout the world. It is also why we have embraced the concept of abolishing all land mines.
There is a balance to be drawn between the protection of our forces and the protection of civilian populations throughout the world. We do not believe that civilian populations are at risk from the responsible use of land mines, such as that practised by our forces, but we believe that the benefits of a global ban on land mines—if that can be achieved—outweigh the benefits of land mines in the protection of our forces. We very much hope to find an alternative solution to the protection of our forces in the near future.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that British industry was underperforming. I could hardly believe my ears, but then he said it again. He was quite wrong. British industries have restructured to meet the challenges that I have set out, often doing so before their European counterparts. Our companies are now in a competitive position, reporting growing order books, reducing overheads and healthy profits.
Much of that is due to their own laudable efforts, but I believe that some of the impetus has come from the competitive rigour, so deplored by the hon. Member for Warley, West, of our domestic procurement approach. I cannot pretend that the process has been painless. Many jobs have been lost as companies have adjusted to changing markets. That is regrettable, but I believe that the industry's future is now much more secure. It has reduced capacity without sacrificing significant capability or profitability.
That reduction in capacity—but not in capability—has often been associated with mergers and acquisitions. That has been less marked in Europe than in the United States, where there has been major restructuring, with the creation of giant corporations such as Lockheed Martin International, which has combined sales worth more than £20 billion. In Europe, the defence industrial scene is far more fragmented, but the rationalisation process is now starting to transcend national frontiers with acquisitions and joint ventures. We welcome that, where the results are sensible commercial alliances across national boundaries. Notable examples include GEC's joint venture with Matra on satellites, GEC-Thomson on sonar and Dowty-Messier on landing gear. These arrangements reflect the commercial recognition that the domestic markets of single European countries are simply not big enough to sustain major companies into the next century.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that commercial interests are best served by demonstrations by our armed services of safe and competent usage of equipment? On that basis, does he agree that there must be an element of RAF low-level flying in Scotland, where we probably take more than our fair share? Does he also agree that RAF air traffic control services must be kept at a high level? Will he join me in commending the safe operation of the Scottish airways by the RAF air traffic controllers at Prestwick?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of preserving low flying, a capability that can be preserved only with actual practice. I also agree with him about the professionalism of both the military and civilian air traffic controllers. I take my hat off to them for the way in which they perform their stressful job. The safety of our airways must be—and will remain—paramount.
UK industry is now well placed to make a full contribution to the rationalisation—

Mr. John Spellar: Before the Minister leaves the subject of air traffic control, will he answer the question posed yesterday on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who unfortunately cannot be here because he is at a Western European Union meeting? My hon. Friend asked about the privatisation of the national air traffic control service and the attitude of the Ministry of Defence towards it. Will the Minister also answer the question that I hoped was going to be asked by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), about the maintenance of the facility at Prestwick?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that question yesterday, and I have nothing to add to what he said then.
UK industry is now well placed to make a full contribution to the rationalisation within Europe—and indeed elsewhere—that will undoubtedly occur in the coming years. There will be scope for some transatlantic rationalisation and the development of strategic partnerships. The Rolls-Royce acquisition of Allison engines and the British Aerospace collaboration with McDonnell-Douglas are cases in point. In the short term, however, major opportunities lie across European


boundaries. The relative scale of US and European companies does not lend itself easily to a partnership of equals.
There is no escaping the fact that United States expenditure on new equipment, spares and ammunition is more than double that of all the European NATO countries, and seven out of the top 10 defence companies in the world are American. If Europe is to meet this challenge, rationalisation of the industrial base across the continent is essential. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) yesterday referred to this, and I hope to answer some of his questions in what I am about to say.
The House will have heard that the Government believe that it is for industry to make commercial decisions about future markets and industrial partnerships. We do not want the Government to decide industry's future on its behalf. What we can, and should, do is provide the climate and the opportunities in which such linkages can succeed. As I have mentioned, we must recognise and take account of the industrial consequences of the procurement decisions that we make.

Mr. Barry Jones: Have the Minister today—and the Secretary of State yesterday—in effect announced a new policy?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No.
All this means that we must accept an increased level of mutual dependency in meeting procurement needs by agreeing joint requirements. Defence co-operation is no longer just a political option, but an economic necessity. We have many good examples of previous and current co-operative programmes, but we now need to build on these to create structures and processes that offer value for money, while helping rationalisation of the industrial base.
We have made it clear that the adoption of a more commercial approach to future co-operative programmes and their supporting structures is essential. We need to avoid wasteful practices that only serve to distort the market and reduce the economic benefits to be derived. In the past, the obvious benefits of collaboration—increased standardisation, inter-operability, shared development costs, longer production runs and reduced unit costs—have been diluted by working practices contrary to the needs of efficiency and effectiveness.
In future, we should procure from the most efficient supplier—not the one who happens to make up that element of any particular country's work share based on an anticipated level of investment in the project. We cannot subsidise unnecessary duplication of facilities to satisfy purely national, rather than economic, needs. We want taut commercial management, with responsibility for the co-ordination and delivery of the programme to time and cost vested in a single prime contractor. We do not want—we cannot afford—the overhead expenses of large multinational project offices. We need lean organisations, with no international duplication of staffing.
It is against that background that the UK has been contributing positively and constructively to the creation of a European armaments agency that offers the potential for achieving the sort of efficiency improvements and

administrative savings that we should all desire. However, we are still some way from its realisation. In answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), my remarks today are drawing together some points that have not been drawn together in the same place. It is important that I do that.
We believe that, where nations can agree to common requirements and procurement policies and practices on individual projects—or, indeed, classes of equipment—they should do so. The plans of France and Germany to create a joint armaments framework offer a new channel for a worthwhile and meaningful co-operation in policy and practice. We are working with them—and the Italians—to bring this to fruition.
Some hon. Members may be concerned that, in the creation of a European defence armaments agency, or the quadrilateral armaments structure, there is a move towards protectionism and the establishment of a Fortress Europe mentality. That would be a total misunderstanding of the Government's vision for the new structure. It is not in our interests—political or military—to do that.
This Administration believe passionately in the benefits of open and competitive markets, and strongly value the transatlantic link that has served the security of us all so well during the past decades. The simple fact is that a strong and vibrant European defence industry with expertise in many leading edge technologies is in all our interests.
Our industries must develop quality products that are both affordable and exportable, and which compare favourably with the best in the world. We will not achieve that in an introverted, isolationist European context. We need to take the measure of what the world has to offer, and match or better it. That will generate the domestic and overseas sales essential to the continued well-being of our industries. Our market share of the world's defence markets highlights the need for trading nations to develop openly and competitively.

Dr. Godman: In relation to the safety of crews, has the Ministry any plans to order replacement vessels for the aging ships that service Trident submarines as they enter and leave the Firth of Clyde?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I have no plans to announce that during this speech.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister has made some interesting points about the European armaments agency, and I did not disagree with much of what he said. I understand, however, that that body is to hold a critical meeting this Friday, and that the French and the Germans are arguing that any country that signs up to the agency must then place its orders with European countries. Can the Government elucidate the stance that they will adopt at that meeting?

Mr. Arbuthnot: It is difficult to conduct international negotiations across the Floor of this Chamber or in public, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. I would rather not be tempted, if he will forgive me.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The Minister knows that I have taken a considerable interest in this matter with him for a long time. How will the


competitiveness of British defence equipment in world markets be enhanced by the activities of the European armaments agency? To whom will the agency be answerable? How will it be funded? Will it not be located in Bonn, not the United Kingdom, which has Europe's premier armaments industry? What are the benefits? Experience with the NATO management agency for the Tornado and with the NATO Euro-fighter management agency shows that what we need is not more bureaucracy but a more commercial approach to procurement.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I was just coming to bureaucracy. The agency about which we are negotiating may well be the catalyst for the sort of rationalisation of industry that I discussed earlier. We in the United Kingdom face defence industries in the United States, and increasingly in south-east Asia, which are getting ever larger. There must therefore be further rationalisation across the borders of Europe and the borders of the rest of the world to gain the benefits of large scale which United States industries already enjoy.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: A moment ago, the Minister mentioned the transatlantic connection and the need for open and competitive markets, both points with which I agreed. Does he agree, though, that the transatlantic link could be further strengthened if British defence manufacturers believed that there was an open and competitive market in the United States?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I totally agree. I have argued in the United States and in this country for a two-way street. I recently wrote an article in which I said that, to some extent, there is a two-way street between the United States and Europe, but that, unfortunately, more traffic flows in one direction than in the other. That is not sustainable in the long term, because all the traffic will end up at the wrong end.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is not good enough to write articles. How does the Minister intend to deal with the problem of American protectionism? Does he not understand that American companies can make loss-leading bids for procurement contracts with the MOD in ways that can destroy key parts of our defence industrial base; while British and other European companies are not allowed to compete for similar procurements in the United States? The hon. Gentleman cannot just shrug that off as a matter for article writing. It is a point that will have to be dealt with.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not shrug it off—that is absurd. I talk to industry in the United States; I talk to senators and congressmen, as do my ministerial colleagues. We try to persuade people in the United States. The same applies to European industries: protectionism is not in the interests of United States industry or of European industry. It is a question, rather, of continually persuading those who in the past have argued in favour of protectionism that it will not help them—

Mr. Home Robertson: But it is happening.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Well, we are arguing strongly against it, and we believe that we are beginning to make some

headway. The world is a mutually dependent place; it is a shrinking and a changing world too. A Fortress America would be just as damaging as a Fortress Europe.
The United States is a major market for UK and other European defence goods. To stop American products competing to meet our requirements would ultimately be self-defeating for us, but, as I told the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), there must be reciprocity—the two-way street should be just that. Governments must commit themselves to keeping defence markets open and avoiding the damaging but tempting voices of protectionism. It helps no one.
We have proved our credentials in the results of recent competitions, in which we have, in turn, been accused of a lack of concern for the United Kingdom's and Europe's industrial base and of an anti-American Anglo-European preference. Neither is correct.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I accept everything that the Minister and Opposition Members have just been saying, but will he use this opportunity to give credit where it is due?
In the world market for defence products British industry does extremely well, because it is competitive and has a technological edge. Can my hon. Friend confirm that more than half the American orders for defence hardware placed with overseas countries come to this country because of the competitiveness of British industry and the quality of our products? What is more, they come here because of the important north Atlantic alliance. which is underpinned by co-operation between British and American companies.

Mr. Arbuthnot: To someone with the expertise of my hon. Friend, I can only say yes.
The recent Farnborough air show epitomised the healthy competition through excellence that exists in the global defence and aerospace sector; it also showed the United Kingdom's leading role in that sector. I pay tribute to the success of our defence industries in today's highly competitive overseas markets. Exports of defence equipment benefit both the country and the Ministry of Defence. They support about 90,000 UK jobs, and in 1995 they brought home about £5 billion-worth of business—almost 20 per cent. of the world export market.
It is our overall defence export objective to maintain and build on this performance over the next five years. We are well on the way to achieving that in 1996. The MOD benefits directly from the sale of equipment overseas through the payment of commercial exploitation levies, where we have helped to fund development. It also benefits indirectly from the lower unit costs which result from the spreading of overheads.
For these reasons, it is appropriate that we continue to give full and vigorous support to British industry in pursuit of overseas sales prospects. That is a vital ingredient of success. Industry's assessment is that, in recent years, some 70 per cent. of the total value of export sales would not have been achieved without assistance from the Defence Export Services Organisation. We will continue to help British industry to compete for success in this important marketplace.
As well as developing our procurement policies, we have also made enormous strides in improving the organisation for procurement. Our service men and


women need to know that, in the Procurement Executive, they have an organisation no less professional and expert than themselves. It is an organisation which, at its new headquarters in Bristol, can realise its full potential. The new Procurement Executive will save about £100 million a year in running costs alone. The organisation has 35 per cent. fewer staff than in 1990, and has halved the number of people in the very top management levels. That very much reflects the reality of "Front Line First", under which savings such as those can be ploughed back into defence expenditure elsewhere—including, for example, back into the front line. It is our aim to ensure that the Procurement Executive remains nothing less than the best defence procurement agency in the world.
Over the past year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined yesterday, we have seen a commitment to providing equipment as efficiently as possible. In February, we announced an order for a further three type 23 frigates from Yarrow, valued at £400 million. In July, we announced the decision to order replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid from GEC Marine, worth about £450 million. In March, the contract was let for the Apache attack helicopter from GKN Westland, representing the most important element of the Army's forward equipment programme and an investment of £2.5 billion. In February, new support vehicles—both utility and battlefield ambulances—were ordered from Land Rover, worth some £200 million.
Recent decisions for the RAF represent one of the largest packages of equipment procurement with the purchase of the Nimrod 2000 from British Aerospace, Storm Shadow from British Aerospace and Matra Marconi, and GEC Marconi's Brimstone, with a total value approaching £4 billion and sustaining around 5000 jobs in the UK. Those decisions will bring jobs and support industry throughout the United Kingdom.
For the future, we look to continuing work on the new batch 2 Trafalgar nuclear-powered submarines and the collaborative common new generation frigate for the Navy; the multi-role armoured utility vehicle for the Army; and the assessment of bids for the future medium—range air-to-air missile-one of the key armaments for the Eurofighter and for the RAF.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend made an important announcement in respect of the Eurofighter at last month's Farnborough Air Show. I wish to repeat that the Government are committed to the production investment, production and support phases of the programme, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the relevant memoranda of understanding and contractual negotiations. I hope that our German, Italian and Spanish partners will be able to make the same commitment soon. We will be working to avoid any further costly delay in this vital programme.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that the equipment we were providing to our armed services was world class. That is because our armed services deserve no less. They are widely respected, and I would go so far as to say they may be the most professional armed services in the world.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I am winding up.
Look at the job our armed services do. They save lives worldwide with sensitivity and courage, they protect the nation at home and our interests abroad. In that job they represent the people of this country, and they are identified with every man, woman and child. That is why we are so proud of what they do, that is why our armed services have the full commitment and support of this country, and that is why, under a Conservative Government, we will continue to give them the support and commitment they need and deserve.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 10 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches between 7.30 and 9 pm.

Dr. John Reid: I thank the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, and heir presumptive to the baronetcy, for his contribution. It is my pleasurable duty, in view of his announcement, to extend the congratulations of the Opposition and, I am sure, of the whole House to Sir Charles Guthrie on the announcement today of his appointment as the next Chief of the Defence Staff from April next year. That news will be warmly welcomed because Sir Charles Guthrie has served his country well through the Welsh Guards, the British Army on the Rhine, Aden, Special Forces and 22 SAS. I am sure his best years of service are ahead of him, to the benefit of the British armed forces and of this country. I notice from his "Who's Who" entry that he is also a member of the Beefsteak club—I did not know that before today—which presumably means that his appointment had the full support of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. We look forward to that appointment next year. April and May will be an interesting two months—new Labour, new Government, new Chief of the Defence Staff.
On a sadder note, I also wish, on behalf of the Opposition, to express my personal regrets and condolences to the family of Warrant Officer James Bradwell, who died in Northern Ireland. He was the first service man to die there for two years and the first since the ceasefire ended, but we should not forget that he was the 653rd British service man to die for the cause of his country and of peace in that unhappy Province. When we pay our condolences at his death, we give testimony also, symbolically, to the other men and women in our armed services who have served their country and sacrificed themselves on land, on the seas and in the air.
On land in Bosnia, British troops are foremost among the United Nations troops; they have managed to preserve at least a semblance of civilisation, not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives in that war-torn country. On the sea, the Royal Navy serves not only in the Adriatic off Bosnia but in the Gulf, with the Armilla patrol and in its activities against drugs, in which it stands silent sentinel to the values of civilisation.
In our preoccupation with Bosnia, we should not forget what a powder keg the Gulf is. Saddam Hussein—as the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned, correctly, yesterday—will use every opportunity to tease and to


probe the defences and the will of the United Nations and the west. The fact that there are some 30,000 United States troops, some 200-plus combat aircraft, 25 surface ships and two aircraft carriers in the Gulf is numerical testimony to the dangers that lurk there.
We also pay tribute to the constant patrolling by the Royal Air Force in the United Nations designated areas over Iraq and in Bosnia. We have, of course, supported the Government in almost every operational decision that they have taken over the past decade, not because it was expedient to do so but because it has been right. We supported the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, when it went into Bosnia, despite the fact that we—together with Back Benchers on both sides of the House and some Ministers—occasionally despaired about the lack of clarity in the objectives and guidelines.
Thankfully, that lack was remedied to some extent with the implementation force and we have made plain our support for the follow-on force, in principle, should it happen. Of course, we wish to see all our major allies involved on the ground and in other areas, but we will give support to British participation under United Nations auspices and as part of NATO.
I wish to add one note of caution. The tasks that have been completed so far in Bosnia, complicated though they were, have been relatively easy, in terms of definition and implementation, for a military force. The tasks have involved separation of forces, patrolling borders in Bosnia, and so on. When the winter snows melt in Bosnia and we reach the next stage for the follow-on force, it will be more difficult to clarify the roles of that military force, because it will have to cope with the return of refugees and, perhaps, social unrest. We must be clear to avoid the mistakes that were made a few years ago, and we must not allow the military to be sucked into what are essentially civilian policing operations. Nevertheless, with that qualification, we pay testimony to our troops.
In these two days of debate, we must be clear that, whatever criticisms are levelled, it is not our service men and women who are on trial but their political masters. Here they are, arrayed in front of us and all together for once in a defence debate—the top brass of the political world in Britain.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who I hope can manage to avoid hot flushes today when criticisms are levied, is fresh from his television spectacular. I hope that everyone saw those 58 minutes on television. The programme, "The Top Brass", was an amazing success—an amazing risk.
I enjoyed the 56 minutes of the programme that were devoted to the life and times of Sir Nicholas Soames. I am glad that the Secretary of State was allowed a walk-on part—or was it simply his picture in the background on the walls of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces?
Having been somewhat eclipsed on the television arena, the Secretary of State had to find himself another stage. Last week, there was one by the seaside. We all saw that week-long, bizarre spectacle.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I shall certainly give way to the working-class hero on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Gallie: It is all very well to joke about the activities of Conservative Members, but the

hon. Gentleman made a serious point a few minutes ago. He suggested that if widespread catastrophe occurred in Bosnia—with perhaps people dying all over the place—the armed forces would step back. That would be against the wishes of my constituents who have written to me in great numbers on that issue and on Rwanda. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said?

Dr. Reid: Yes. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was saying exactly the opposite. Where military tasks are involved, it is appropriate that the British armed forces should be present, and it would have the support of the whole House. But if increasingly the task is to solve disputes between neighbours about who is entitled to go to what house as the refugees return, which is clearly a civilian policing task, we must make it clear that the objectives, rules of engagement, aims and use of the armed forces are limited to tasks that are compatible with their experience and within the practical possibilities of military implementation.
The armed forces must not become a secondary substitute for civilian police forces, especially as we shall have at least four indigenous police forces in the three areas, plus the central police force. My comment was not meant as a criticism of our armed forces. It is a worry that Ministers will have and will be keen to avoid.
May I return to what I was saying about the Secretary of State? At last week's conference, he intelligently discussed almost everything except defence. That was in keeping with the bizarre nature of the conference. I do not know what the message was. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the highlight of the conference for the first two days. We were constantly told that he did not have an enemy in the world. He has no compulsion to find enemies as he seems to be hated by all his friends, so he does not need one.
The Prime Minister again tried to send out a message of leadership on defence, as on everything else. If I were a prime ministerial adviser, I would despair. Nice man though he may be, he seems to find it impossible to summon from within himself the directional leadership that this country desperately needs. I often think that, had the Prime Minister been leading the Israelites out of the desert, he would have returned down Mount Sinai with the ten suggestions rather than the ten commandments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are supposed to be debating the defence estimates.

Dr. Reid: We are indeed, and the essence of any defence force is command, control and leadership. I was pointing out that, from the top, that has been lacking for the country as well as for the armed forces.
The man in charge of defence, the Secretary of State, has come hotfoot from his production on the Bournemouth stage of the adaptation of Cromwell's "Put your trust in John, but keep your powder dry". Last year on the stage, he called in aid the SAS and the special forces; this year we had the adoption of Fabian tactics, which was to keep the powder dry until after the next election.
We are not sitting in judgment on our armed forces; we are not even sitting in judgment on what the Tory party did on defence at Bournemouth. We are sitting in judgment on the two Tory parties represented in front of


us. To use military acronyms, we have the OTT and the NTS—the old Tory toffs and the new Tory spivs. A deal has been concocted between them on defence, as on other issues, to try to cover up that division.
Over the past two days, we have talked of trying to build a consensus on defence. No one should think that a consensus on defence means that we do not criticise each other or that we agree on everything. It means that we agree on a framework to lift national security above party interests and the interests of factions inside parties, which is precisely why I made the point about the division within the Conservative party. I shall outline the areas on which we agree before discussing the areas on which we have massive differences.

Dr. Robert Spink: If the hon. Gentleman is interested in rising above party politics, will he congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his excellent and statesmanlike speech at Bournemouth? Will he join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the 9,000 British troops with IFOR in Bosnia, who have delivered on disarming and separating the forces and on a successful election in September?

Dr. Reid: All right, just for the sake of consensus, I do so on both counts.
There are matters on which the House can agree, some of which have been mentioned already. They include the rationalisation of our reserve forces, which has been undertaken by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He consulted widely beforehand, gave some thought to the detail and listened to criticism from ourselves and others. On that basis, we gave the legislation a fair wind.
Again, this year's aims and objectives of the Ministry of Defence, as outlined in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996", includes the obligation
To provide the strategic direction on behalf of Her Majesty's Government".
All I can say to that is hooray, but we should not have had to wait 17 years to find that strategic direction is one of the objectives of the Ministry of Defence. It should have been an objective at the start of the Tory Government, not in their dying months.
Progress has also been made on joint operations. It makes sense to have joint training of helicopter pilots from all three services. The establishment of a joint permanent headquarters is a significant advance in operational capability, and I am grateful for the access and briefings that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave me on that matter. But even where both sides of the House have agreed on those trends, the Government have found it impossible to avoid the incompetence that has marked so many of their ventures.
A number of the ventures relate to their approach to joint service activities—for example, the tragic and shambolic plans for the joint staff college, which seems to be in a constant state of flux. The sell-off of the Greenwich naval college was decided on the basis of figures which, on investigation, the Defence Select Committee subsequently found to be inadequate and incomplete. The Secretary of State was forced to do a U-turn on his plans for the unfettered right to sell off the college willy-nilly to whomever he chose.
We then found that the plans to site the joint college at the Army college at Camberley were delayed by a lack of suitable accommodation. Temporary resiting to the air staff college at Bracknell was then accompanied by an announcement that private funding would be sought not only for the extra accommodation needed but for the whole staff college project. With the best will in the world, and trying to be as non-partisan as possible, I believe that, if we manage to reach a general agreement on consensus, it will be difficult to sustain it, given such shambolic incompetence in what should be a relatively simple decision.
On the subject of the joint rapid deployment force, we welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement 18 months ago. We welcomed his reannouncement of it three months later and we welcomed his third announcement. At the time, I said that the only rapid things about the force were the rate and consistency with which it was being reannounced.
As soon as the force was set up in August, the Secretary of State made yet another announcement. A press report stated that Britain's elite rapid deployment force was to lose an entire battalion of paras just three weeks after its launch because of huge overstretch. The rapid deployment force, which was not formed too rapidly, then had no one to deploy. In the face of such incompetence, we have difficulty maintaining cross-party consensus on essentially good ideas.
We have complained that, even when the parties agree on issues, the Ministry of Defence must be constantly goaded or prompted into action which must ultimately be taken and from which it could derive some credit if it did so without being badgered. Hon. Members have mentioned some examples. The MOD was goaded constantly to respond adequately on the issue of Gulf war syndrome. I do not question Ministers' sincerity on that issue: they are in a difficult position, as they must be judges regarding what happened, prosecutors when seeking evidence about what might have occurred, and then defendants, as ultimately they will be liable if it is found that something went wrong.
Nevertheless, Ministers should have realised earlier that important issues regarding our obligation and our loyalty to service men and women will not go away. If we find that there was negligence initially or subsequent negligence in investigating the matter, leading to accusations of a cover-up, Ministers must take the strongest possible action.
The MOD was prompted to take action about the treatment of our service men and it has been pushed to adopt a rational view regarding service women. I do not know exactly how much we have paid out to pregnant service women, but it is more than £50 million. If the MOD had listened to those who warned of a problem, we would have been spared the indignity of treating women in that fashion and saved £50 million in hard-earned Treasury money, which could have been spent on much-needed equipment.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman's argument would carry more weight if he did not speak for a party that is committed to adopting the


social chapter, which we opted out of in the Maastricht treaty. It would impose more rules and regulations across all sectors of British life.

Dr. Reid: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I wish that he were sure of his facts. The social chapter specifically excludes the armed forces and therefore is not relevant to my point about pregnant service men and women. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am trying to be politically correct—as my party knows, I have a long history of political correctness.
The matter of the Commission for Racial Equality was raised yesterday. No one suggests that the ministerial offices of the Crown are filled with racists, but there is something wrong when the Commission for Racial Equality must threaten to drag the Ministry of Defence through the courts to force it to implement plans with which the MOD says that it agrees. Despite the comments of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the truth is that the MOD was over a barrel due to its tardiness in making advances on the question of recruitment from ethnic minorities. It was an abject surrender. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) described the MOD's backdown to the CRE as the first unconditional surrender by British forces since Yorktown.
Despite that, we have much to be proud of. As the Minister said, we are blessed with the quality of our service men and women and, similarly, of those involved in our manufacturing industry. Two weeks ago, I was privileged to visit the Royal Armoured Corps with Sir Charles Guthrie to view Challenger 2. It is a marvellous example of British engineering which is manned by skilled, highly trained crews from the Royal Armoured Corps. I will not go so far as to say that it floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee but, for something that size, it is an impressive example of British engineering and martial skill.
Our manufacturing record is, however, continually marred by the Government's apparent incapacity to produce the goods on time and at cost. I do not blame the MOD entirely, but several weeks ago I was interested to read one of its press releases about the Phoenix spy plane. Hon. Members probably know that the plane is extremely effective but seldom comes back in one piece—which somewhat limits its operational usefulness. It is like a boomerang that goes only one way. The press release stated:
We now have confidence in the cost-effectiveness, tactical performance and reliability of the system to meet the army's requirements".
The plane is now expected to be in service by 1998, which is great—except that it was due in service in 1989. The MOD is proudly boasting that equipment which is seven or eight years overdue will be delivered in three or four years.
We do not blame the Government for every delay. However, any objective observer who examined the pattern of consistent delays would conclude that it was the only area where the Government appeared to have a strategy. I am reminded that Napoleon once instructed Bourrienne not to open his letters for three weeks and, after that time, expressed satisfaction that most of the correspondence had resolved itself. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State is adopting a Napoleonic strategy to defence procurement: if we delay indefinitely, the need will go away. But it will not.
Similarly, we do not blame the Government for every cost overrun—we know that there are technical difficulties and updated requirements. However, at the end of the day, we seem to spend much more on almost every project—except Trident, of course. The Minister spoke about that at great length today. I do not know whether he is good with figures. I know that he is a Chancery lawyer—I discovered that before he came into the Chamber. I do not know what that is—perhaps it is someone who defends chancers, which would explain why he is at the Ministry of Defence. The Minister is certainly not good with Roman numerals, since he spoke to me recently about our proud role in winning world war eleven.
I think that the cost overruns are due to something in the system rather than to the personal inadequacies of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. At least tonight we can welcome the fact that he referred to the system of procurement. He mentioned data information systems and the need to bring the three services together. That is a great idea. However, by chance I met a man on a train who worked in that area and he told me that the three computer systems were incompatible. I pass on that information from someone at the coal face; I do not know whether it is accurate.
We agree on many issues. There is no major difference in our views on NATO: it is the cornerstone of our policy. We believe in developing the Western European Union and that it should not be part of the European Union.

Dr. Spink: What will the hon. Gentleman agree with next week?

Dr. Reid: Anything that the Conservatives say that makes sense. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to belong to a party that has a knee-jerk reaction of saying black every time someone says white, he is entitled to do so. I want to belong to a party that is capable of analysing the real world and of reaching rational conclusions and that is prepared to agree with anyone who has reached the same conclusions on the basis of the same analysis. I am not ashamed of that; we have operated in that way for some considerable time. We support "Partnership for Peace", the domestic joint service operation and the combined operations with our allies abroad, all of which should be the basis for common agreement.
There are, however, two major obstacles to the development in Britain of a consensual framework on defence. The first is the fact that the Government refuse to have a real review of the pattern of overstretch, which has placed an intolerable burden on ordinary service men and women. Not only is the situation not improving, despite constant promises, but it is getting much worse. Ministers speak as though the problem had been revealed to them suddenly from on high. I have only one simple point to make: if the demographic curve shows that the market for people joining the armed forces—people aged between 18 and 24—has plummeted, it may come as a surprise to the Government, but it was predictable about 18 to 24 years ago.
Anyone could have read the runes of the coming drop in demography. We warned six years ago from the Opposition Front Bench that there would be just such a shortage of recruits. As all hon. Members know, we are now 4,000 short of the establishment figures even for forces that would be overstretched had they attained those figures.
Overstretch is not just a matter of a fall in the demographic curves. It reveals astonishing complacency and incompetence by successive Ministers. Recruitment has been constantly undermined by the closure and reopening of Army recruitment centres, the closure and reinstatement of regiments and the MOD's constant chopping about and incapacity for forward planning. Over the past 10 years, Ministers have introduced the concept of stop-go planning into the Ministry of Defence. That is the first problem we have in developing a consensus, and it is one of the reasons—not the only one—why we insist on a real strategic security review and why we will carry that out in government.
The Government have failed in a second crucial area: by imposing their ideology of privatisation and contractorisation as a dogma on the services, they have undermined organisations bound together by the ethos of collective cohesion. Group loyalty may mean nothing to the unfettered free marketeers; it means everything to those whose lives depend on it. It does not show up on a profit and loss account or feature in an accountant's log, but the ethos of the military group is still a vital, permeating, irreplaceable asset for the operational effectiveness of our forces.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I clarify one point for the hon. Gentleman before he goes any further? We do not regard the Government as having any consensus with the Labour party on any single defence issue. Will he give one example of a reform of the type which he is talking about that has undermined the cohesion of the armed forces, bearing in mind that, in my view, the new management strategy, for example, has been the greatest single liberating measure ever achieved to allow the services to run their own affairs?

Dr. Reid: I will answer both points directly. The Minister rejects any attempt to make national security a matter of national consensus, above party politics. Most people in this country, including those in the armed services, are sick and tired of the yah-boo politics conducted in the House over national security. People are desperate for politicians of all parties to put aside their petty partisan differences when it comes to our national security and to put country above party. They will have noticed that any attempt by us—no matter how constructive—to build such a consensus, is rejected.
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he will not be in a position to offer consensus or otherwise; the governing party next year will offer that consensus, and that will be the Labour party.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: When I have answered the Minister's second question. The hon. Gentleman would not like me to be discourteous, and the answer will be of interest also to him.
The Minister asked me for an example of contractorisation undermining the cohesion and effectiveness of the armed forces. The contractorisation process for the maintenance of RAF aircraft is such an

example. It was put out to tender and won by a private company—I spoke to RAF mechanics who were bitterly disappointed about that. The private company undercut the RAF, which was allowed to tender in that particular station, but was told that, even if it won, it would have to keep to the establishment numbers agreed in "Options for Change" and defence cuts studies—in other words, even if the RAF won the tender, it would still have to lose it.
The RAF can be undercut by a private company that can make a low tender because it does not have to train mechanics or pay them the wages of the RAF. It does not have to do that because it recruits RAF-trained service men who have been made redundant and are on a pension from the MOD, so the same people do the maintenance on Royal Air Force aeroplanes for a private company. Five years down the road, there will be no RAF-trained mechanics on the base, because the RAF lost the tender, but nor will there be trained mechanics in the private company, because it put in a low tender.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Dr. Reid: The Minister says that I do not know what I am talking about, but I am telling him what I was told by the people involved. We shall find out who is right when we have to pick up the pieces after the shambles created by the dogmatic imposition of free market values on a service that believes in collective loyalty and group cohesion. If Ministers do not understand the importance of that to the armed forces, they do not understand anything.

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman has been his engaging and entertaining self. He speaks about consensus and about group cohesion and refers to a prospective Government, whose members I presume he imagines lurk on the Opposition Benches, but what about the amendment that stands in the names of his hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway? That is, manifestly, totally distinct from his policy and that of his Front-Bench colleagues. If he cannot achieve consensus even within his own party on fundamental security issues, how does he hope do it in government?

Dr. Reid: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent man, is sufficiently semantically aware to know that there is a difference between consensus and unanimity. [Laughter.] The cynics laugh. I read somewhere that cynicism is the crutch that intellectual cripples sometimes have to lean on as a substitute for intelligence.
I do indeed seek consensus. Is that consensus to be built around the position proposed by a small number of my hon. Friends tonight? No. Do I reject their views? Yes. Have I anything in common with the main thrust of their views on defence as expressed in the amendment? No. Is their view in accord with the Labour party conference decision? No. It is totally in opposition to the views of the Labour party conference, the parliamentary Labour party and the party leadership. I cannot be any plainer.
On contractorisation, I merely say one thing, because I cannot put it better than Basil Liddell Hart put it some 50 years ago when he wrote:
living in an atmosphere of soldierly duty and esprit de corps permeates the soul. whereas drill merely attunes the muscles.


Basil Liddell Hart got it right. It would be to everyone's benefit if the Secretary of State for Defence paid a little more attention to Basil Liddell Hart than to Mr. David Hart when taking decisions inside the MOD.
Another obstacle to consensus is the Government's response to entreaties—[Interruption.] The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is shouting—I think he said "Insane!"—from a sedentary position. He will get his chance to put his case later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he has already made it plain: not only will he not seek agreement in the House on anything, but he will reject it outright from the beginning when it is offered.
It is relatively easy to identify the challenges that face the armed forces in this country. We know that the type of threat has changed. We know the problems that are occurring in the developments in Russia. We know about changes in the military architectural structure. All those things are talked about constantly. There are, however, one or more deep social changes that no one has yet faced up to, but future Governments will have to face up to them, because although they are not the most obvious changes, they are profound in terms of their effect on the armed forces of this country. They are changes in society. I shall outline three of them, because as far as I am aware they have not been mentioned.
The first is perhaps the most obvious: the general perception widely held by the public that the threat has gone. I agree entirely with what the Secretary of State said at length yesterday. The threats have not gone. In many ways, there are more threats now than before. War is not cost-free, despite the experience of Bosnia. Whatever we say in the House, the general perception among the public is that the threat has gone. One reason for the successive cuts in defence budgets over the past 10 years is the fact that, when the Cabinet has to decide how money will be allocated, it reflects what the public feel, and the general impression is that the public do not feel that defence should be a recipient of large amounts of money, because they do not perceive that there is a threat. Therefore, all of us who do perceive it have a duty to join together whenever we can to combat complacency among the public. That is the first great social change to which we must attend.
The second change is in the personal experience of most people in this country. I give one fact to the House. In the 20 years to 1964, 6.5 million British people had been through the armed forces. Some 30 years ago, 20 million families had personal experience of, links with or empathy with the armed forces. In the 20 years to 1994, the figure was only 500,000. In 20 years' time, it will be around 300,000. In other words, contrasting 30 years back and 30 years forward, for every 100 people who have experience or empathy with the armed forces, there will be only three. That is the second great change that we cannot ignore. If we do, we do so at our peril.
The third change is in cultural attitudes in society: the growth throughout the 1980s of unfettered individualism—Thatcherism at its worst. There has been some discussion of what benefits we may have gained from Thatcherism. We could discuss that all night. We certainly gained one huge social deficit as well: the idea that the individual should enrich him or herself irrespective of what happened in the rest of the population, the idea that the biblical merit of the good samaritan lay not in good deeds but in the fact that he was

rich—a sort of biblical yuppie. There was the idea that one had no obligation to anyone else, because "society" did not exist.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Disgraceful!

Dr. Reid: I am using the words of the Secretary of State's mentor. It is no good him telling us that it is disgraceful. He was standing behind her, cheering, when she was telling us that, for 10 years.
Not only is that completely at odds with the ethos of our armed services: it is a destructive worm at the heart of our social and cultural attitudes in Britain. Thank God people are moving back from it.
Taken together, those three changes mean that, in terms of personal experience, empathy and cultural attitude, the gap is growing between the value system of the population in general and the ethos and life style of the armed forces in particular. How do we begin to face those challenges? Every hon. Member who has the armed forces at heart knows that they are challenges.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has made one or two very good points, but I do not agree with his third challenge. As he will know, I served in the armed forces in the late 1980s. He mentioned the tremendous selfishness of the 1980s. I was commanding some of what are termed "Thatcher's children", and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those young men were just as good as young men had been 10 or 15 years before. They were excellent. They were honourable, loyal and, decent, and they looked after other people. They responded to all the things that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, so he must agree that his third challenge is a load of bunkum.

Dr. Reid: Far from contradicting me, the hon. Gentleman reinforces everything that I said. I said that unfettered individualism existed outside the armed forces. People who joined the armed forces out of a sense of public service, who rejected the denigration of the idea of public service, who believed that the individual should make sacrifices for the group, who rejected Thatcherite values, were the very people who joined the British armed forces, and they are still there. Those values are deep inside the British armed forces, and we must ensure that we help to build a bridge between civilian attitudes and those of the armed forces.
There are two ways to do that: the first is to have a vision for Britain's role in the world, in which our armed forces play a significant part. I believe that the Labour party can create such a vision. We believe that, at home, individuals have responsibilities to their neighbours. We believe that that is the same abroad. We believe therefore that we have not only rights on the international stage but responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to create a world order out of the chaos, and the British armed forces throughout their history are uniquely placed to contribute to that role.
The second is to start to restore a trend, which is already moving in the direction of the beliefs that we hold, in the culture and attitudes of people in this country outside the armed forces; to raise again the idea of public service as a public good rather than as some left-wing


Utopian wishy-washy social work idea; to say again that public service is good for the country, not only inside the armed forces but outside; to talk of social responsibility as well as social rights; to raise again trust, honour and integrity as obligations that we owe to each other in society.
All those elements have survived in the armed forces, and they should—and, I hope, will—be encouraged outside. It is time to restore the elevation of public service and social responsibility as well as individual rights outside. The time has come to restore pride in our armed forces and our country. Neither the current Secretary of State nor the Conservative Government are capable of doing that, but within a year there will be a Government who will, because the Labour Government will make that a key priority.

Mr. Winston Churchill: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—who speaks on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, and long may he continue to do so—but I do not know where he has been in terms of visiting Her Majesty's forces if he thinks that they lack a sense of pride and purpose. I defy anyone who has visited the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in their different deployments worldwide to come away with such a misguided opinion. It is just baloney, and the hon. Gentleman should know better.
The hon. Gentleman has done his best to be consensual today and he assures us that if, by mischance, the Labour party wins the next general election, there will be a consensus within his party.

Dr. Reid: I will seek a consensus.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman now qualifies that by saying that he will seek a consensus within his party. He will have an uphill struggle because on the matter of defence, and above all on nuclear defence, his party is split from top to bottom, no matter how hard the Leader of the Opposition may try to paper over the chasm.
I warmly welcome the announcement of the appointment of General Sir Charles Guthrie as Chief of Defence Staff. He is a first-class soldier, and I have no doubt at all that his will be an excellent appointment. I also pay tribute to our armed forces whom, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I have the privilege of visiting at so many locations in so many of their roles world wide. One thinks especially at present of our forces serving in Northern Ireland and those in Bosnia where, together with our allies, they are holding the ring and bringing back some semblance of normality and peace to that strife-torn land.
It is a regrettable fact that, one year in every four, our great ally across the seas, the United States, takes leave of its senses and indulges in an unashamed 12 months of electioneering. It becomes quite impossible to get any coherent response, let alone leadership, out of the United States during an election year. In the case of Bosnia, that risks being all too tragic, because the President has committed himself publicly to the withdrawal of US forces from IFOR in the former Yugoslavia before the year is out.
Were that to happen—I very much hope that it will not, and that the matter will be reconsidered as a matter of urgency—it would pull the rug from under the allies who are doing so much to bring peace back to Bosnia. It would make vain all the efforts that the international community, and not least our armed forces, have made during the past four years to try to bring Bosnia back from the brink.
It is essential that a successor to IFOR, with US participation, should go forward and that that should be announced at the earliest possible moment. It may be on a reduced level. That is not important. What is important is that the United States is there and that it forms part of the alliance engaged on the ground in Bosnia. However much, as Europeans, we may regret it, it was the adherence, involvement and commitment of the United States in IFOR, which was so conspicuously absent in UNPROFOR, that completely changed the perception of the local warring factions towards the international community trying to bring them back from the brink.
I am conscious that time is limited and I will confine myself to just a couple of further topics. As has already been said, our armed forces are unquestionably the finest in the world. But without the proper equipment, even the finest cannot give of their best. No single item of equipment which is due to enter service in the immediate future is more important than the European fighter aircraft. It is not only an important exercise in defence co-operation within Europe, but it is at the heart of the future capability of the Royal Air Force.
We now hear ugly rumours that Germany is minded to wreck co-operation in that area by drastically stretching out the time scale of procurement for EFA in order, we are told, to enable Germany to meet the criteria for joining a single European currency to which Chancellor Kohl has committed himself, despite the fact that it is likely to cause a drastic split within the European unity so painfully built up over the past 40 years.
As was perceptively observed by the late Julian Amery—a former Member for Preston and for Brighton. Pavilion, whose loss we keenly mourn—France seeks to appease Germany in its every move and sits like a mahout atop the ears of the German elephant, vainly and ineffectually seeking to steer the elephant in the direction that France wishes it to go. That is not happening, however, and it is most regrettable that, unlike the British Government, our German allies should not take on board the importance of co-operation in this vital area of European defence. By their actions, they threaten to wreck the fledgling co-operation that has been developed in recent years in that area. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, as well as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will bring home to the German Government just how important we regard that particular joint venture.
On more than one occasion in the past, I have been minded to criticise my party's Government for not doing enough on defence. As the election approaches, however, there can be no question but that the greatest threat to the effectiveness and capability of Britain's armed forces comes from new Labour. Its proposal for a comprehensive review of defence may sound reasonable enough to the uninitiated, but every time there is a defence review it is the Treasury that wins and the armed services are forced to beat an undignified retreat. In Labour hands, a defence review can only mean massive defence cuts.
In the six years up to 1994, the Labour party conference voted to reduce Britain's defence expenditure to the European average. That represents a cut of £4.5 billion—equivalent to the abolition of the Royal Navy. That cut, combined with Labour's antipathy to defence sales to many foreign countries, could threaten vast numbers of the 400,000 defence-related jobs in Britain. Only last year, the Transport and General Workers Union—which I believe sponsors the leader of the Labour party—proposed at its conference to slash defence expenditure by no less than £18 billion. What the Labour party could do with the remaining £4 billion in terms of national defence, let alone co-operation with our allies, I just cannot fathom, but new Labour is split from top to bottom on the defence issue.
We are assured that new Labour is different from old Labour, but who are new Labour? Eighteen of the 24 members of the shadow Cabinet in the Commons were opposed, at various times, to Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. At the height of the cold war, nine of those 18 called for Britain's withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and for the expulsion of American forces from their British bases. Theirs is a party divided on the essentials of defence. It is divided on Trident, on Britain's independent nuclear capability and on maintaining a strong and effective defence posture. What faith can the armed forces, let alone our allies, have in such a motley, inexperienced and divided crew?

Mr. Eric Martlew: I will not follow the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) down that line. I will merely say, "Old Tories, old misrepresentations".
Mine will be a short speech which I believe will be greeted with enthusiasm by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I want to bring constituency problems to the attention of the House and especially the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
During the autumn, I attended various ceremonies on the closure of RAF Carlisle. Some fine tributes have been paid to the base's work in the past 58 years and I wish to add mine tonight. I still argue that it was wrong to close the base, but the decision has been taken and the base will cease to be operational by the end of the year.
In the RAF debate in June, I brought two problems appertaining to the base to the Minister's attention, and I am glad to say that he was accommodating on both of them. One was the plan to store bonemeal from culled cows at the base, which was adding insult to injury. The other was that the Ministry of Defence had reneged on its decision to go into partnership to develop the base. Since then, however, through the Minister's good offices, there has been a policy change and we are getting along with the base's development.
There are still, however, two contentious issues. One is of a material kind and affects the base's future. The second is symbolic. It needs to be brought to the Minister's attention so that he can perhaps change his mind.
The first is on the former RAF base's development. We are fortunate that many companies are interested in purchasing or leasing sites on the base. We need to put the infrastructure in place. Everything was going reasonably well. We made a Konver bid and we scored high on the points system. We were told unofficially that

it was likely that we would receive £1.1 million to develop the infrastructure, as would the scheme in Chorley. That amount was not exactly what we needed, but it was satisfactory.
Since then, due to objections from authorities that were not considered, I understand that it is all back in the melting pot. I should be grateful if the Minister could use his good offices to reconsider the position. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry is the lead Department on the issue, but the Ministry of Defence clearly has an important part to play.

Mr. Soames: I do not have that information here tonight, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will look into the matter tomorrow and have a reply for him on the Members' letter board within 48 hours.

Mr. Martlew: I was hoping that the Minister would say that. I remember him being courteous to me on many occasions—or I think I remember.
The other problem is one in which the Minister has direct authority, and I hope that he will be as considerate on this one. It concerns the gate guardian at RAF Carlisle. As hon. Members will be aware, most RAF bases have a redundant military aircraft outside the base. RAF Carlisle had a McDonnell Douglas Phantom, which was appropriate because RAF Carlisle was a maintenance unit that kept all the American spares.
The local aviation museum, which is based at Carlisle airport nine miles away, made a request either to purchase the Phantom or to have it on permanent loan, and I wrote to the Minister asking whether that was possible. The answer was that, because it was an American aircraft and the American Government maintained the disposal rights of any redundant aircraft, it would not be possible without the Americans' permission.
I wrote to the American embassy in London, which assured me that it would probably consider the transfer favourably if the Government went through the correct channels and asked the embassy for the transfer. I wrote to the Minister, who said that the transfer was not possible, that it would cost too much money and that that was not the way forward. He regretted the decision and acknowledged that the base's 58 years of service to the nation was an outstanding achievement, but he still would not take that decision.
I cannot understand that attitude, because, nine miles away, there is RAF Spadeadam. Anyone who knows the history of the British ballistic missile or the British space probe will remember that the Blue Streak rocket was tested at Spadeadam. It is now a base for electronic warfare, but it is an RAF base. It could easily keep an eye on the Phantom—not that anyone is going to steal it—and there would not be any expense.
I understand that the gate guardian is to be transferred to RAF Sealand, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I wish RAF Sealand all the best and I am sure that it is a good base, but I regret that our gate guardian is being sent there. First, it is an insensitive decision, because, five years ago, RAF Carlisle lost more than 100 avionic jobs to RAF Sealand. Secondly, like all other bases, RAF Sealand already has a gate guardian—I believe that it is a Hunter fighter—so it does not need an extra one. The expense of


taking the plane, which will have to go by road, from RAF Carlisle to RAF Sealand will be far more than keeping an eye on it at the Solway aviation museum.
The Minister has already been obliging on one occasion. There is a symbolism here that he cannot brush aside. It is important for the future that he decides that the Phantom will stay in Carlisle, that it will be looked after by RAF Spadeadam and that, over the years, we in the region will be able to look at that plane with pride to remind us of the 58 years of fine service that RAF Carlisle gave to the nation.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I echo the closing part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's speech yesterday, in which he rightly said that there is a serious danger that Bosnia could teach us the wrong lessons. He said that, as recently as 1991, we found ourselves facing, wholly expectedly, a high-intensity war in which we had remarkably light casualties, but which involved an enemy with large quantities of highly capable equipment.
I was talking that morning to a gentleman—whose name I shall not mention because he has no opportunity to reply, but who is a well respected commentator on diplomatic and military affairs—who told me that the Government had got it all wrong and that the solution to squaring the circle on military budgets was to stop "refighting the cold war", to stop buying highly expensive equipment such as the European fighter aircraft, which he was convinced we would never use, and instead to focus more heavily on the sort of equipment that would be most useful for Bosnia and other peacekeeping operations. He mentioned the shortage of suitably adaptable light armoured vehicles.
In the last century, after we had defeated Napoleon, there was a strong feeling that the armed forces had a variety of roles, including exploring the world and policing our incipient empire, but that fighting a high-intensity war of the era would not again be necessary. Frankly, we had a pretty rough time of it in the Crimea, but that was relatively small compared with the shock that we got in 1914 when we had an army that was designed only as a back-up for a colonial police operation. It was an army of brave, disciplined people, but with none of the modern equipment of its enemy. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the Admiralty and the Navy estimates had been treated in the way in which the War Office and the Army estimates had been treated by the House for a generation, we would have been in serious danger of losing the first world war, perhaps fairly early on.
The truth is that armed forces do not exist to deal with the here and now: that is not their principal purpose. However important the situation in Bosnia, however anxious we may be to contribute to the crisis in Rwanda, however urgent the various demands on our military manpower in peacetime, the prime purpose of the armed forces is to deal with the crisis that arises only once in a generation—it may not arise for 50 or 60 years—when there is a threat to the continued existence of the nation.
There is a nasty whiff of history about the events taking place in the ex-Soviet states. Twice in the past 200 years the largest power in Europe has imploded economically

and politically, its armed forces have felt humiliated and the price of bread on the streets has risen. One was post-revolutionary France; the other was Weimar Germany. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, as he obviously wants to say something—no, he does not.
I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment that the prime requirement is to maintain a capability to participate in and deter a high-intensity war. When we look at what has happened in the ex-Soviet states and at the situation in Russia, whose leader is on his sickbed, we should worry about the potential for things to go badly wrong. On a visit to Russia last year, I met the leader of the communist party in that region, who came to power there a few weeks after my visit. I am afraid that our visit to provide political advice to his democratic opponents was a complete failure. He was a most impressive guy. The last words he said to me as I left that meeting were, "Mr. Brazier, you must not imagine that you, in the west, can disassociate yourself from what is unfolding in this country. Just remember the panic you had in the west because one nuclear power complex in Ukraine went critical 10 years ago. Think of the scope for things to go wrong in a country with 40,000 nuclear weapons." Neither post-revolutionary France nor Weimar Germany had nuclear weapons.
The serious problems that could threaten our vital national interests are not just the other side of what used to be the iron curtain. There is a dangerous stand-off between Israel and the Palestinian people, which could destabilise that end of the Mediterranean. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein—a man who is sitting almost on top of the bulk of the world's oil supplies—is once again throwing his weight about. Iran is developing a nuclear programme. Indeed, the Iranians largely financed the successful North Korean nuclear programme.
We do not know when the next threat of a high-intensity war will come. We do not know whether it will be in six months, six years or 16 years—but I would put money on its not being 60 years away. The Secretary of State is right to say that the maintenance of a high-intensity war fighting capability must remain the core of our defence programme and must never turn into a collection of peacetime commitments, even though some of them, including Northern Ireland, are vital to our national security. Two issues stem from that. First, when deciding how much we can take on—in particular, the decision, which is very close now, on our future role in Bosnia—we must ask not only whether we can play such a role within an affordable resource base, but how far it will compromise, through overstretch, our ability to maintain that core war fighting capability.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend's comment emphasises the divide across the Chamber. We have heard from the Labour Front Bench that one of the first things a Labour Government would do on coming to office would be to hold a defence review. None of the Labour Front Bench speeches included a clear statement about the criteria for that review. The Labour party is not keen on spending more money on defence. I shall not refer to party conferences again, but it is certainly not proposing any more money. Moreover, there is a terrific appetite on the Labour Back Benches for more and more peacekeeping operations. I suspect that the core requirement for a high-intensity capability with world class armed forces whose prime role is to defend the vital interests of this


country within our principal alliance would be progressively eroded and undermined if the Labour party was ever to take power.
In the closing minutes of my speech, I should like to focus on personnel issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is replying to today's debate. The Government have undoubtedly given us the tools, particularly in the past few months. They have given the armed forces a series of extremely important orders. The three Air Force orders made in the summer came on top of earlier orders for the Apache, the medium-lift helicopters, the Hercules, the three new frigates and the amphibious ships announced in July, but we still have serious concerns about personnel matters.
I welcome the fact that recruitment is beginning to pick up a little, but overstretch has become a serious problem. The Navy's commitments have increased by one third in the past 10 years, while the number of warships has fallen by one third. The result is that our ship crews are working twice as hard. One hears again and again of examples of overstretch in the Army. I recently heard of a soldier who has spent three consecutive Christmases away from his family. If that soldier does not get back from Bosnia in November, this will be his fourth Christmas away. People understand the need to make such sacrifices. None the less, numbers are becoming extremely tight.
I would like to make four points about personnel, and I am sure that, as ever, my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to them. First, one element of the Bett report is causing enormous disquiet in the forces—it has been mentioned to me by several people at different levels. It concerns the prospect of job reviews across the three services.
A little of that occurred under the Labour Government in the 1960s, and there was endless hassle and argument over, for example, the relative merits of a tank commander and an engineer section commander. Re view caused much disquiet and unhappiness. The idea that we should extend it across all ranks in the forces and begin to determine a much larger proportion of the pay packet by people's individual jobs rather than simply their rank and how long they have held it may appeal enormously to those who are management consultant minded, but it is deeply unpopular in the forces and a recipe for instability. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the idea is best buried.
The second personnel issue is about rents. The Ministry has made some welcome changes to its proposals to sell off married quarters stock It is no secret that I was opposed to the measure, but I welcome the fact that the site exchange option has been dropped. I also welcome the appointment of Sir Thomas Macpherson as chairman of the Annington trust. Nevertheless, the biggest single factor that will affect the ordinary MOD tenant next April will be whether they receive another swingeing rent rise from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

Mr. David Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extra cost incurred by the Ministry of Defence—it is hundreds of millions of pounds—now that the married quarters have been sold off will be clawed back from the service families by doubling or tripling their rents over a period of time?

Mr. Brazier: No, I will not make that allegation because it would not be true. There is a clear commitment

that service rents will be fixed by the AFPRB. After discussions between it and the Bett committee, which are minuted in Sir Michael Bett's report, and after reading the AFPRB's last report, it seems that it needs some steering from Ministers. We cannot become neutral on the issue of accompanied service in the two mobile services—the Army and the Air Force. It must surely be right to fix rents at a level that creates an incentive to officers and senior NCOs to keep their families with them.
I understand that there is a worrying trend among middle-ranking—and even some fairly senior—officers of leaving their families behind when they are posted to Germany or on tours to Northern Ireland. I have been told, although I have not been able to confirm it, that a brigade commander who is about to take up his post in Germany is leaving his family behind. I am not being critical of the individuals concerned, but there is something wrong with the incentive structure when that is happening. When young soldiers' wives in Germany see their husbands go off on unaccompanied tours to Bosnia, they want the reassurance that the wives of the command structure go too.
The matter is extremely important and I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, even if it means slightly smaller salary rises, the Government should ask the AFPRB to fix rents at a level that will provide an incentive to keep military communities together by encouraging accompanied service.

Mr. Viggers: May I remind my hon. Friend that commanders who are offered service housing suffer a penalty if their wives spend more than a certain number of nights a year in their quarters? That often means that the commander will encourage his wife not to be there most of the year but to live elsewhere and to visit only on special occasions. Does he agree that that is disadvantageous to service discipline abroad?

Mr. Brazier: Yes, I thoroughly agree.
The implication in the Armed Forces Pay Review Body report and the Bett report that we should be neutral on whether we have accompanied service as we move towards what they regard as fair rents less a discount—a discount of 38 per cent. is built in for the disadvantages of service life—seems totally wrong. I strongly suggest that the Government should try to fix the allowance structure and rents especially to encourage accompanied service.
My third point on personnel concerns reserves. The House has heard me speak at some length on this subject, as I know has my hon. Friend the Minister. There have been two very important advances this year. The welcome Reserve Forces Act 1996 will make it much easier for people such as those serving in the reserve force in Bosnia to do so flexibly. In addition, the announcement that the reserve forces will have a bigger say in their own future with the appointment next year of a reservist on a part-time basis as the next director of reserves is also welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend has some news on when that appointment is likely to take place.
Having read the report from the Pentagon on the role of reserves, and considering it has managed to save so much money by finding so many more roles for reserves. who after all cost less than a fifth of their regular counterparts, I cannot help feeling that reserves must be


part of the key to ensuring that the best equipment remains affordable. Whole categories of activity have been taken over by reservists in America, ranging from legal services and aerial rescue services to two thirds of their airlift capability. We are doing some of that, but we could do much more.
My final point on personnel concerns almost the only point with which I agreed with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—indeed it was almost the only point that was raised in all Opposition Members' speeches with which I agreed. It concerns the staff college. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is deeply concerned about the issue and that he is taking a close personal interest in it. The armed forces, and the Army in particular, are deeply worried by the uncertainty about the staff college. Even if it is impossible in the short term to find a tri-service site that is big enough and usable, the present temporary arrangements cannot continue indefinitely. It would be much better to send the Army back to Camberley, where it has some of the best purpose-built facilities in the world, than to allow the uncertainty and the temporary arrangements to continue.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to confirm yesterday that it is the Conservative party that believes profoundly in the core capability of our armed forces to defend us and deter a high-intensity war. He put his money where his mouth is by placing a number of essential orders over the summer. I urge the House to approve the defence estimates.

Mr. Harry Cohen: In the first part of his speech, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was desperate to manufacture threats. We were told during the cold war that the Soviet Union constituted the greatest possible threat. We are now told that there are much worse threats. It seems that any excuse—the country can go to ruins—can be used just so long as we buy the next weapons system.
The cold war led to a nuclear arms race that brought the world to the brink of destruction. The stock of those weapons, upgraded by this and other Governments, still has the potential for vast destruction. With the cold war over, there is an opportunity for significant nuclear disarmament, but it is being squandered by the Government.
It is a scandal that this country's nuclear weapons policy has not been properly revisited. Britain should not be basing its defence policy on nuclear weapons. Many distinguished British defence experts such as Lord Carver agree. The Government's deterrent argument does not stand up, except for the Saddam Husseins and other nuclear proliferators, who can use exactly the same argument as that deployed by the Secretary of State yesterday simply by deleting the word "Britain" and inserting the name of their own country.
The nuclear weapons programme has sucked up far more resources than has ever been acknowledged. It costs far more than has been declared. Nuclear weapons are the biggest single hidden cost in British history. Such opacity continues today, and even some senior Opposition Members believe the Government's line that, by the next election, 98 per cent. of expenditure on Trident will have

been completed. That is plainly wrong. Ninety-eight per cent. of procurement or capital costs may have been spent or committed by then, but that ignores the running costs, which may double or treble the procurement costs over the next 25 years, not to mention the decommissioning costs.
To get some idea of how much nuclear weapons really cost, I tabled a series of parliamentary questions, asking why British defence expenditure is so much higher than that of the average of other European members of NATO. First, I asked what were the main functions carried out by our armed forces which were not carried out by those of other European members of NATO. On 16 April I was told that those functions were the provision of the so-called nuclear deterrent, overseas garrisons and support for the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland). That seemed a useful start. I then asked what was the estimated annual cost of each of those functions.
On 17 May I was told that maintaining the so-called nuclear deterrent should cost no more than about £200 million a year, that overseas garrisons cost some £360 million a year to maintain and that the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland) cost some £525 million a year—a total of some £1,080 million annually.
Armed with this information, I then asked for the latest official comparisons between the UK's expenditure on defence and the average expenditure of the other European members of NaTO. The answer given to me on 12 June was fascinating. It showed that we spend three times as much on defence in purely financial terms as the average for our European allies. When those figures are calculated as a proportion of gross domestic product, it turns out that the declared expenditure for the three extra roles is a fraction more than 0.1 per cent. of UK GDP. Bearing in mind the fact that the UK spends 3.1 per cent. of its GDP on defence, and that the European average is 2.3 per cent., roughly 0.7 per cent.—or £5 billion a year—of UK GDP is still effectively unaccounted for. Incidentally—this relates to the ten-minute Bill that I introduced earlier today—£5 billion is 32 times the sum needed to reduce class sizes to 30 pupils in every school.
Where has this money gone? The major roles not undertaken by other European armed forces have been taken into account. Assuming that there is no major fraud in the Ministry of Defence, the money must be being spent on something. I suggest that a fair chunk of it goes to support Britain's nuclear weapons infrastructure. It is time that the Government came clean about it. It smacks not only of excessive secrecy but of poor management.
Eighteen out of 21 major defence projects examined by the National Audit Office had slippage on their in-service dates. I put that down to poor management. The NAO reported that 23 major defence projects had increased in cost to the end of last year by a total of £695 million, the equivalent of another four and a half years of reduced class sizes. The fact that there was supposedly no protective equipment in the Gulf for personnel spraying pesticides when a simple facelet—never mind all the chemical warfare equipment—would have been adequate was surely, again, poor management.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said on television that, if British business were run like the armed forces, the British economy would be like Japan's. I disagree. Any business run by an MOD-type of incompetent management would have called in the receivers years ago.
A classic example of poor management by the MOD has to be the replacement of a single aircraft. On 16 May 1995, a Nimrod aircraft crashed into the sea off the coast of Scotland following engine failure. This was not one of the famous maritime reconnaissance aircraft so often used for fisheries protection or search and rescue operations, but a version of the Nimrod called an R1 which entered service in July 1974 but was not publicly acknowledged until this decade. Until the crash, there were three of these aircraft in service.
The Nimrod R1 was designed for a specific role—to fly close to Soviet airspace so that the Soviet air defence radar would track it. In doing this, the R1 would gather information useful in helping the Royal Air Force V-bomber force to penetrate the Soviet radar screen to deliver nuclear weapons. In recent years, two significant things have happened to change that scenario. First.. the Soviet Union, like the cold war, no longer exists. Secondly, the RAF will no longer carry nuclear weapons from 1998.
It therefore came as a surprise to discover, as I did through parliamentary questions, that this wasteful Tory Government are planning to replace the crashed aircraft at a cost of some £30 million. In addition, the new aircraft and the two existing ones are to be upgraded through a programme called Star Window, at a cost of another £30 million. That is on top of an annual running cost of more than £7 million for 51 Squadron which operates the R1. Millions of pounds are to be spent on this cold war relic. No announcement was made to Parliament about it—the information had to be dragged out of the MOD. What is the money for?
The Ministry should be more open about what the aircraft might be used for—E60 million is a high price to pay for a cold war dinosaur. While I am dealing with openness—

Mr. Brazier: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He mentioned a cold war dinosaur. Many of his colleagues have been saying that we should be doing more about the problems in Iraq and should be more concerned about the massacre of Iraqi civilians by Saddam Hussein. Highly capable aircraft are necessary to do that, so is the hon. Gentleman in fact saying that we should not be involved at all but should leave it to the Americans?

Mr. Cohen: This is not the time to have a full debate about Iraq, but I think that the problem would have been much better solved politically. Had we not sold Saddam Hussein armaments before the Gulf war—as the Conservative Government did—we would have been in a much better position.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, even a year after Saddam Hussein carried out the Halabja massacre, the British Ministry of Defence was sponsoring the Baghdad arms fair? That was a naked attempt to sell British arms to a regime that had already massacred Kurdish people in the disgusting attack on Halabja and which was already perpetuating the most appalling human rights abuses. The Ministry of Defence put arms sales ahead of its concern for human rights in Iraq then, and I believe that it is doing the same in other parts of the world, including Saudi Arabia, now.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. I have not heard any Labour or, indeed, any Conservative Member suggest

that another Gulf war operation should be mounted against Iraq. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
During a debate on the RAF on 2 May 1991, I raised the question of low flying during the Gulf conflict. I said then:
the problem did not relate to the bravery of the pilots, which was beyond argument; the problem related to the tactics laid down by the Ministry of Defence."—[Official Report, 2 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 484.]
I argued that low flying was the wrong technique to be used in the circumstances. I was criticised for saying that both by my Front-Bench colleagues and by Conservative Members.
Over time, how ever, more information has become available, most notably from Sir Peter de la Billière, the British commander in the Gulf war. He said that the MOD did not want to abandon low-level attacks, as that
would impact on the RAF's strategy developed for Europe.
Sir Peter had wanted to abandon low-level attacks because the casualty rate was too high, but had been overruled by London. He had particularly harsh words for an individual he described as
a senior officer in the RAF",
and feels "extremely resentful" about
the authoritarian way he tried to impose his view.
John Keegan, the defence editor of The Daily Telegraph, wrote in that paper on 14 January this year that the senior officer who exerted his authority over Sir Peter was
acting under the influence of a doctrine that had lost its point.
Keegan concluded his article by saying:
Doctrinal rigidity is a defect of which armed forces must cure themselves at all costs.
Alan Clark, replying for the Government in the 1991 debate, said that the United Kingdom
had the only air force capable of positive runway denial on Iraqi airfields".—[Official Report, 2 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 521.]
That was patently incorrect, as Sir Peter said in his book on the war. Sir Peter also stated that Chuck Homer, coalition air force commander,
considered our method of operation a pretty crazy one in this environment".
While it is odd for me to agree with a Gulf war commander, I feel a certain comfort in having my then unpopular views vindicated.
The weapon used in the Gulf by the RAF to attack runways—the JP233—is to be replaced, although there is no word yet about exactly what will replace it. Will the Government learn the lessons of the Gulf war and choose a system that will not be dangerous to the pilots who, one day, may have to use it?
The other issue that must be taken into account in replacing the JP233 is that of anti-personnel mines. Considering the international uproar in recent years, I hope that the Government will ensure that any anti-runway system considered does not include anti-personnel as a part of it—as the JP233 does. My fear is that Ministry of Defence inertia will lead to the same mistakes being made, and that the JP233 replacement will have the same faults and the same mines as the JP233.
In next year's debate on the defence estimates, my colleagues and I will be speaking from the Government Benches. I hope that a change of Government will also lead to a change in Government culture—for greater openness and fewer mistakes, much less money wasted and fewer immoral decisions.

7 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—who is, even now, being congratulated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Occasionally the hon. Member for Leyton and I tour galleries and exhibitions together as members of the all-party arts and heritage group, and I much enjoy those visits. I must, however, say that he is profoundly mistaken and totally wrong in most of his comments in this debate. I speak not only of his comments on the Gulf war, but, particularly, of those on the cold war.
The hon. Member for Leyton seems to have learnt absolutely nothing from the end of the cold war. He seems not to have realised that plans have been found, and confirmed as authentic, for the invasion of western Europe. That was the purpose of the Warsaw pact armies. Those armies were not there because they enjoyed it, but for the purpose of invading western Europe. There was, and there still is, no doubt about that. I am sorry that he has learnt nothing from the collapse of the Warsaw pact.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will be aware that the 7th Armoured Brigade recently conducted a major exercise in Poland, which I visited on several occasions. On two occasions I met the general who would have commanded the Polish army in the event of such an operation against western Europe, and he was quite free in telling me exactly what their tasks were. Those tasks were exactly as described by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Leyton refuses to believe them. He believes that all those Soviet and Warsaw pact officers were cuddly teddy bears, merely enjoying themselves in eastern Europe.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman is again making the point that I ascribed to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): that the threat from the Soviet Union in the cold war was the greatest that it could possibly be. But the Soviet Union and the cold war no longer exist. Why do we need all these new weapons systems now?

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me, because, before the end of the cold war, he was asking why we needed nuclear weapons systems. He asked that then, and I am sure that he would admit it.
It is always interesting to see the second amendment on defence debates. The second amendment on today's Order Paper is supported by 7.5 per cent. of Labour Members. One Labour Member in 13 is willing to go on the record—never mind those who are not willing to go on the record—as saying that they support
the call for the scrapping of Trident as an essential step towards eliminating nuclear weapons world-wide … and to end the United Kingdom's involvement in the conventional arms trade".

The Opposition have the nerve to call Conservative Members divided.
Yesterday we listened to the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), berating the Government for making cuts in defence expenditure and saying how a Labour Government—God forbid—would have done better. It was unfortunate that he could not see the glum faces on the Opposition Back Benches behind him, as Conservative Members could.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that he is in favour of an arms race?

Mr. Robathan: I have said nothing of the kind. I am not in favour of an arms race. I am saying that I am in favour of the good defence of this realm, as are all Conservative—but, sadly, not all Opposition—Members.
The debate has, as always, ranged wide over defence matters. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have not always been in 100 per cent. agreement with Government defence policy, and that I have viewed with regret reductions in the armed forces over the past four years. I fear that we may yet live to regret those reductions. I am, however, delighted that there is now a firm commitment that there will be no real cuts in the defence budget in this Parliament. Defence has taken huge cuts in this decade, and the cuts in no other Department could compare with those cuts. The defence budget should now be exempt.
I should like to speak briefly on the subject of Gulf war syndrome. I am not a doctor or a scientist, but I was in the Gulf during the war and speak from some limited personal experience. There were some very unpleasant injections against anthrax and bubonic plague. Vile pills were administered, and, more conventionally, one was expected to take paludrin against malaria. The Gulf was astonishingly cold, often very wet, and, inevitably, we got very dirty. I was in a staff job, so I spent very little time digging trenches, which makes one very dirty—[Interruption.] One might say "idle".
Gulf war syndrome may exist, and it certainly needs to be investigated. It is a very serious matter, as the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned yesterday, and all members of the armed forces deserve to be looked after properly if they have contracted anything during their service. For that reason, I welcome the research programme that will be overseen by the Medical Research Council.
The Gulf war was, however, a war, and one must ask what priorities an army should have in war. Yesterday an hon. Member mentioned out-of-date gas mask canisters. The important test is whether those canisters were still working, and not the date that was stamped on them. I have been known to eat out-of-date food from supermarkets, as I am sure all hon. Members must have done.
The desert can be notoriously dirty and full of flies. All manner of disease, such as typhus and dysentery, is spread by flies. On many occasions in past campaigns, casualties and mortalities from disease have been much higher than anything the enemy inflicted. Surely, therefore, the need to ensure a healthy and protected force must have been very high on the list of priorities.
Some of the accusations and claims that are being bandied about seem, at best, to be disingenuous. I smell a co-ordinated campaign by lawyers looking for a bandwagon—which is not to belittle the sufferers of various illnesses. Those illnesses, however, do not necessarily confirm the existence of a Gulf war syndrome.
Yesterday I spoke to a friend who had been very ill on his return from the Gulf. He is still serving in the Army and is now, I am delighted to say, fully recovered. He believes that he caught a very debilitating viral infection in the Gulf from being near a sewage works. He took two years to recover from what doctors believe was post-viral fatigue. He told me, first, that he was very well cared for by the armed forces, which is gratifying. Secondly, however—notwithstanding his two years of illness—he told me that he does not believe that he had Gulf war syndrome, if such a syndrome exists.
The nature of Gulf war syndrome seems to change. Organophosphates were not mentioned, at least within my hearing, until very recently. Organophosphates seem to be very dangerous, and I have certainly heard anecdotal evidence from sheep farmers in my constituency in Leicestershire which leads me to think that I would not like to deal with such a substance.
During my military career I spent much time in the tropics, and I recall machines—known as swing fogs—which spread pyrethrum around tents, buildings and people. I understand that swing fogs were particularly effective against flying insects, and I believe that they were used also in the Gulf.
My unit ran a prisoner-of-war camp in northern Saudi Arabia, at Al Quasumah. We had 8,000 prisoners of war pass through the camp, and there were approximately 600 British soldiers there. The weather was getting hotter by the middle of March, but there was never any real disease in the camp, which is a tribute to the high standards of hygiene imposed. The Iraqis came in unhealthy. Some of them had lice, often they were dehydrated and undernourished, and they were certainly dirty and demoralised.
I particularly remember seeing one rather pathetic child of 16 or 17 who had been shot in the foot by an officer on his own side to instil discipline. We fed them, we watered them and we gave treatment to them. I think we sprayed their tents as well—I am sure that we must have done—and we sent them on their way smiling. I have photographs to prove it. They certainly seemed healthy when they left.
I do not know what spray was used around the camp, but I understood that it might have been an organophosphate called malathion. As a precautionary measure against disease, we burnt the camp, but, as far as I am aware, no Coldstream guardsman who was guarding the camp has complained of having Gulf war syndrome.
I remember being told when I was an army cadet as a boy that Army tea had bromide in it to reduce sexual urges. Other hon. Members may recall that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether that is true and whether I have drunk any bromide?

Mr. Soames: Not only is it true, I understand that it is compulsory in the Conservative party today.

Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Sadly, it did not work in the Army and nor does it work in the Conservative party, if reports are true. It certainly did not curb the excesses of the rude and licentious soldiery.
During 15 years in the Army, I was exposed to CS gas at least a dozen times. It was part of training. I am now told that it is terribly dangerous—too dangerous to be sprayed in the face of criminals. It was not too dangerous to be used on soldiers in training. It was not pleasant, but I do not seem to have suffered any ill effects and my eyesight is still relatively good, as I can see all the Liberal Democrats sitting on the Benches opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]
During my service, I was subjected to endless injections. Some of them were very painful, especially the gamma globulin injection for hepatitis, which was delivered to the bottom. On exercises abroad, colleagues of mine went down with malaria, leishmaniosis, leptospirosis and other unpleasant diseases. They were real, identified diseases. I fear that that is part of military service and travelling abroad. Those colleagues were extremely well treated and cared for and, when necessary, were given drugs to combat the diseases.
What is Gulf war syndrome? We need to know what it is and whether it really exists. There is a lingering suspicion in my mind that it is a litigious ploy by cynical lawyers in the United States, and some here, using the suffering of others as a means to their own reward.
I welcome the defence estimates, and I particularly welcome the research programme into Gulf health issues, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and others will not be influenced by the high-profile and opportunistic campaign on Gulf war syndrome.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Bromide or not, I believe that we are right in thinking that the wife of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is expecting a happy event in the next month or two. We therefore wish them well.
I should like to raise five issues succinctly. Thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I was able, with a delegation from this House, to visit Nepal in January. We went to see Gurkha training at Pokharra. I was able to raise the subject with Sir Charles Guthrie—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—when we were invited by the Army board to its first meeting in Edinburgh, where it was most welcome.
I should like to ask the same question of the Minister as I asked of Sir Charles Guthrie: what do the Government see as the future of the Gurkhas? The official view in Nepal was that they valued the relationship greatly and wanted it to continue. Given the economic situation in Nepal, there are many reasons why it should be continued. What is the Government's policy?
I also have a sub-question in brackets. In his opening speech yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence referred to Exercise Flying Fish. I do not say that I am necessarily unhappy about it, but what is the assessment of the effect that it will have on the Chinese? We are told that it is the biggest exercise to be held in Asia for a long time. What precisely is the purpose of it? Is it just all about the Gurkhas in Brunei and our relations with Singapore or Malaysia? How will it be interpreted in Peking? It could be an expensive and provocative exercise in terms of China.
My second question concerns the Ministry's policy on prisons and land. I think that my hon. Friends from Scotland know that all sorts of rumours are flying around


that Ministry of Defence lands will be made available at relatively cheap prices to those who are to run prisons on a private basis. I refer particularly to the Kirknewton site. I do not know whether the rumours are true, but the question ought to be referred to, possibly by letter. There must be a clear policy on Ministry of Defence lands if they are to be sold off, particularly for private prisons—a concept which some of us find totally wrong.
My third question concerns the case that I raised with the Secretary of State during his opening speech. He gave a serious answer, promising to look into it. I refer to the case of Colin Wallace. The difficulty is that the great great grandfather—ministerially—of the Secretary of State is probably responsible. Present Ministers and civil servants have inherited a problem from long, long ago. But-this is a very big but, and a House of Commons point—how is it that, at this stage, information can come to light which persuades the Court of Appeal to give a judgment which, frankly, bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I were trying to tell the House in 1989 and on 12 February 1990, at column 114?
In an Adjournment debate on 27 June 1989, my hon. Friend and I were savagely rubbished by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). One does not object to being criticised in this House, but to be criticised so ferociously and in such a derogatory manner when it turns out that the Court of Appeal is upholding precisely what we were trying to say really is a bit rich. I have with me the wad of questions—heavens, there are more than 200 of them! If hon. Members, asking the right questions—spot-on questions—receive answers which turn out, in the view of the Court of Appeal, to be inadequate, how can we be persuaded that proper attention is given not to the odd buckshee question but to repeated, detailed questioning?
That brings me to my fourth issue, which concerns what happened in the Gulf war.

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I see to it that he receives a reply on the matter of Colin Wallace from the Home Secretary? I am not able to deal with the issue. Also, may I reply to him on Kirknewton by letter, because I do not have the facts at my fingertips?

Mr. Dalyell: There ought to be a Government reply. I have never been difficult on the subject of which senior Minister replies. It is an area between the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I would find it totally acceptable if the Home Secretary, as a senior Minister, responded. The matter has reached a stage at which the Government should give an undertaking that the Home Secretary, rather than a junior Minister, will consider it.
On the question of what happened in the Gulf war, I refer to a letter sent to a number of hon. Members on 4 October by the Minister for the Armed Forces, which stated:
We have now established that certain OP pesticides (other than malathion) were also used in the Gulf: these were dimethyl phosphorthionate, diazinon and azamathiphos. We are conducting urgent investigations into the extent of use of such pesticides and I will write to you once we have a clearer picture on this.
I am loth to criticise what happened in the Gulf, because it may be that everything was done in a hurry. In addition, I do not doubt the good faith of Ministers—other

than to ask, what on earth were their scientific advisers doing in relation to these questions? Almost anyone with a knowledge of chemistry knows that there should be a red alert as soon as these substances are involved, and people should have been saying, "Hey! What's this?"
I am not being wise after the event, but the chemicals involved ought to have sounded warning signals. Why, after all this time, did they not send such signals, in the light of the questioning on the matter? I return to a point that I made during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—if there had been a hot situation in Iraq in August or September 1996, heaven help us. Are we sure that the same thing would not have happened? It is no good covering over the past, because we want to know what will happen in the future.
Paragraph 7 of the Minister's letter states:
We are now urgently re-examining the records of those who have attended the medical assessment programme and have exhibited a specific range of symptoms to establish whether or not their health is likely to have been affected".
I think that that re-examination ought to have taken place many moons ago, but I accept that the Minister for the Armed Forces will report in good faith everything that he knows to the House.
I wish to refer to a minority view on what we ought to do about the situation in Iraq, but it would be inappropriate for me to argue the issue in detail as I have in Adjournment and other debates. I think that we ought to remove sanctions forthwith, and talk to them. However, it is legitimate to ask in this debate how long the Tornado patrols will continue. I fear that, sooner or later, there will be an attack from Iraq or—more likely—a malfunction. These things happen, as we know; something similar happened just off Blackpool during the Labour party conference. Heaven help us if there is a malfunction in the desert.
Defence Ministers ought to have listened to what Flight Lieutenant Nicol—a pilot who was shot down in the Gulf—said on Radio Leeds, during a programme on which I and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) were invited. We hope that, if there was a malfunction, pilots would eject. If they eject, we hope that they land without losing their lives. They would then almost certainly be captured, and my fear is that they would be paraded with maximum television coverage, with CNN in attendance, through the streets of downtown Baghdad.
What do we do then? I hope that we will not automatically threaten the kind of missile attack that was talked about in August and September, because that raises all sorts of questions about our obligations to the UN. I register extreme unhappiness about any missile attack on Iraq—let alone those that are not agreed by members of the Security Council.
The justification for the previous operation in 1990—whether one agreed with it or not—was that it was a UN operation. It is a different matter when one goes ahead on the basis of Anglo-American decision-making. What is the Government's attitude to operations not agreed by China, the Soviet Union or France, for heaven's sake? When there is that kind of unhappiness among other nations, are we justified in going ahead with the Americans?
Having been to Iraq—rightly or wrongly—three years after the Gulf war, I can say that we are getting ourselves into a position where we are simply being hated by a


whole generation of a people with whom we had far better trading relations than the Americans had. People ought to remember that the best trading partners in the Arab world for Britain were the Libyans, against whom we have sanctions, and the Iraqis. It is very little skin off the noses of the Americans commercially that sanctions are imposed on those countries.
Finally, during the recess, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I asked for Parliament to be recalled when it looked as if there was to be another Gulf war. We asked the Prime Minister this question:
To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 September, if he will state the conditions in which he believes the public interest requires Parliament to be recalled, with particular reference to the involvement of British personnel on active service".
The Prime Minister replied:
A decision to recall Parliament depends upon the prevailing situation. It is made after consultation with colleagues and through the usual channels."—[Official Report. 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 649–650.]
Some of us think that, as soon as it is clear that this House might be sending British service men into military action, the House of Commons ought to be recalled to discuss the matter before any irrevocable steps are taken.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is a very good reason why nobody can trust Labour on defence, as he—along with 20 colleagues—signed an amendment calling for one-sided nuclear disarmament that would, in effect, render this country totally defenceless.
I take issue with the opening remarks yesterday by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who painted a bleak picture of poor morale in the services. That is simply not the case, as I have seen for myself.
I am now a third of the way through my parliamentary armed services scheme, attached to the Army. I must say that it has been an eye-opening experience. I have always been a great admirer of our armed forces, and I have never doubted their great professionalism, but to see it in practice is a humbling experience. I do not believe that anyone realises how hard they work. The pace is killing, with back-to-back training, exercises, deployment and retraining. Those magnificent men and women are deeply committed, and are proud of their work. As a result, they are the flag carriers for Great Britain plc all over the world.
In a deeply dangerous world, with many interests of our own to protect, besides our commitments to international forces, are we perhaps asking too much of our services and giving them too small a share of the national budget? After all, the services are an extension of our foreign policy. Our men are deployed in a broader range of tasks promoting our interests than at any other time in the past 50 years. But commanding officers tell me that "can do" has reached its limits. They cannot ask more of their men, because there are simply not enough hours or days available. Overstretch is being caused by asking too much of them and giving them an ever reducing share of the budget in real terms.
Although I agree with the Select Committee's comments, I believe it would be helpful if Ministers assured us that this year's defence estimates will not again

be undermined by any more defence cuts in the forthcoming Budget. The importance of such an assurance cannot be overstated. For years, we have been cutting the allocation given to defence spending in real terms. The truth is that we went too far, and are now paying the price.
I appreciate the fact that we are now deeply committed to arms procurement, amounting to about 39 per cent. of our defence budget. That is most important in the modern world. The fact that we allocate to defence only a fraction more than the average NATO country is not a fair barometer, however. The fact is that our well-being depends to a greater extent on international trade and investment, which need protecting. In short, a military presence is an extension of our foreign policy, and it is short-sighted to cut our best British export.
I welcome the fact that underspend can be carried forward, but in the final analysis that just scratches the surface. Some of the money has already been allocated to procurement, but not all of it. There have been some unexpected savings.
I issue a special plea for more resources to be put into recruitment. We face a serious manning problem, and share colleagues' concern at the shortfall of 4,000 recruits to the Army. These manning problems do affect our operational ability; they also affect the stability of families, because so much more is being asked of the men already in the services. I am aware, too, that the Navy and the Royal Air Force face recruitment shortfalls.
The problem began when we made extensive cuts under "Options for Change" as a short-term economy measure, without recognising the long-term effects. One very damaging such effect has been on the Army's image, and hence its ability to recruit. It has been seen as a career in decline. We also cut money for the usual recruitment methods too severely: the closure of some high street recruiting offices, the ending of the junior leaders, and so on. I say: hats off to the present Adjutant General, Sir Michael Rose, who is a man not lacking in determination. But in my view he needs a bigger budget to enable him to tackle this problem boldly.
We must also return to high-profile advertising. We need more high street recruiting offices—I do not believe that leaflets in job centres are good enough. They are woefully inadequate. Employment officers in Sutton tell me that it is not their job to promote the services above any other career. We therefore need to market the modern Army. Schools must be encouraged to start their own combined cadet forces—I regret to say that very few have them. Careers officers and advisers should promote the armed services as a positive career instead of sidelining them. We need to show that life in the Army is relevant. What is more, the Army is an extremely good employer.
Joining the Army today means acquiring skills and training that may prove useful when the soldier leaves. I hope that it will be possible for soldiers to acquire NVQs in much the same way as people can in the police force. The false image of the infantry is that it consists of people with fixed bayonets charging around digging ditches. Wrong. The modern infantryman is a technical person, using complex weapons and vehicle systems.
The Army teaches valuable skills and habits, instilling discipline, motivation, commitment, loyalty and initiative—all qualities essential to future employers. Above all, the Army provides valuable support for young


people from broken families and disadvantaged backgrounds. It gives them a stability that they have never had before.
It is important to concentrate on methods of training. Some have become too rigorous and demanding for today's young people, who have grown up with very little sport. They arrive in the Army quite unfit and with poor muscle tone. They have lived lives of junk food and computer games. When I visited Bassingbourn training regiment, I discovered that the training timetable can be set back because of sprained muscles.
Perhaps it would be better to lengthen the training period to give young people to time to adjust to what is required instead of racing them along and creating serious problems. Ultimately, the result is what matters. Quite often, a young man who shambles into the Army wearing an earring and long hair surprises himself and turns into a fine soldier.
I am not talking just about initial training; high-intensity training is also of the utmost importance. In the course of my parliamentary armed services scheme, I visited the Army training unit at Suffield in Canada. The high-intensity training undergone there is clearly a must for a modern army. It is rigorous and demanding.
The soldiers spend three weeks out on the prairie night and day in all conditions—below zero in autumn and spring, or temperatures soaring into the forties in summer. The exercise is intended to simulate as closely as possible the real thing, within the bounds of safety. I certainly hope that there will never be any cuts in such training. I have watched the combined forces there wheeling across the prairie, engaging in live firing and generally charging around. I have seen how highly effective such forces can be.
At the same unit, adventure training is experienced, giving every young man the chance to see whether he can go beyond what he thought was his limit. I myself was put through a free-fall parachute jump. I never believed I could do it, but I did. I trust that this high-intensity training will be regarded as sacrosanct.
There is a danger that, with so much peacekeeping to be done, our military capability to fight a war may ultimately be damaged. Focusing too much on peacekeeping work might lead to a loss of fighting skills. There are likely to be many more peacekeeping missions, and soldiers will undoubtedly find them rewarding, but we must never lose sight of the skills needed for high-intensity war—skills that cannot be learned overnight. Such skills are an insurance policy for our future security. The threats are still out there, and we must always be prepared for them.
As we approach a general election, I hope that the electorate will study carefully the widely contrasting approaches to the defence of our country by the Government—the Conservative party—and old Labour, real Labour. The Opposition's commitment to a strategic defence review is a masquerade for radical defence cuts—we should make no bones about that—because they have a wide social agenda that must be paid for. Nobody can trust Labour, and it would be folly for anybody ever to think of doing so.
I am enormously proud of the Government for their commitment to giving our magnificent fighting forces the support they need. I have no doubt, and no hesitation, in supporting and approving the defence estimates.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It has been an interesting debate thus far, but I cannot be the only person who was appalled by the sense of levity surrounding the contribution from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the use of poisons in Iraq. The story coming out about the use of organophosphates in Iraq, and the damage done to so many people, resembles the measures used against the nuclear test veterans from 1955, whose case was ignored for so long. In too many such cases, the Ministry of Defence turns a blind eye and refuses to discuss the problem. It is not right that the House should be laughing and joking when such matters are raised.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) talked about the joy of physical education and forcing people to be physically stronger. She should think about some of the reasons why some of our young people have appalling physiques. Is it anything to do with the cuts in physical education in schools and the sale of school playing fields? Those policies have led to a lack of exercise or any opportunities for games for so many inner-city children.
Why do they sit in front of computer screens and televisions all day? Because the youth centre down the road has been closed because the Government will not fund it. We should be realistic—social problems are not solved by forcing people into the armed forces, which is the agenda that the hon. Lady appears to want.
This debate takes place at the end of the 20th century, after the horrors of two world wars and with another 20 million dead from conventional wars since the end of the second world war. What are we doing? We are talking about enemies and about arming ourselves for real wars. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has said that we must not concentrate too much on peacekeeping, because we must get ready for a war; but nobody has produced an analysis of the origin of any supposed threat.
From the experience of recent years, including the Gulf war, we must ask ourselves some hard questions. What were we doing arming Saddam Hussein? Why did we ignore the systematic abuse of human rights in Iraq, while we sold arms and military-related equipment to that country? We are currently arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth, even though we know that that country has an appalling and abominable record on human rights, which many in the House dare not mention, because they do not want to upset the arms market.
Our obsession with selling arms around the world is poisoning our attitude to human rights abuses. That is why I am happy to append my name to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), which suggests cutting defence expenditure, recognises the problems of the obsession with selling arms and specifically draws attention to the World Court decision on nuclear weapons and the problems and real costs of the continuation of the Trident programme.
I find it very sad that the Secretary of State for Defence did not once, in a lengthy contribution, utter the words "comprehensive test ban treaty"—unless I missed them—nor did he mention the problems surrounding the ratification of that treaty because of the attitudes of Britain and France. France undertook all those nuclear tests last year, and Britain is extending its nuclear capability


through the construction of the fourth Trident nuclear submarine and the potential arming of up to 512 warheads.
Surely now, at the end of the 20th century, we should urgently consider getting the nuclear comprehensive test ban treaty ratified and start on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as envisaged by President Gorbachev more than 10 years ago. He sadly lost office later, and could be described as one of the many victims of the cold war.
This year, we have had an historic decision. The International Court of Justice in The Hague, on 8 July, made one of the most important legal decisions it has been asked to make. The question put before the court was:
Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?
The court advised:
In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, their destructive capacity and capacity to cause untold human suffering and damage for generations to come, their use in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the law applicable in armed conflict.
It concluded:
the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law, applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.
That decision is of profound significance. I find it depressing that the Secretary of State, despite my intervention, was unable even to refer to the decision of the International Court of Justice.
The court accepted that nuclear weapons would violate human rights and rejected the idea that environmental laws do not deal with war. In particular, paragraph 32 of its decision states that the general obligation on states
to respect and protect the natural environment … applies to the actual use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.
It accepted the view that, if the use of nuclear weapons is illegal, the threat of their use is also illegal. We see implicit threats of the use of nuclear weapons from the degree of arming—and indeed, from certain politicians at times, we hear explicit threats of the use of nuclear weapons.
The court also accepted that mere possession of nuclear weapons could be a threat. It accepted that nuclear-free zone treaties point towards eventual general abolition of war; that nuclear weapons are subject to the laws of war, specifically the non-use of weapons against civilians; that nuclear states are responsible for the incidental effects of nuclear weapons on neutral states; and that the five nuclear powers had failed to provide any basis to justify the limited use of nuclear weapons.
The court also declared that article VI of the non-proliferation treaty is an obligation on the nuclear states to achieve total nuclear disarmament. The court also refused to accept the case for the legality of low-yield nuclear weapons.
It is important to get those matters on the record. Some people have pontificated about the importance of the International Court of Justice, but when it says something that is not acceptable to the nuclear states they are strangely silent. I hope that the House will have opportunities to return to that matter in future, because it is important that we have that discussion.
Surely we will not enter the 21st century by preparing our capability for the total annihilation of the planet, when the real problems are the impoverishment of the south, the

enrichment of the richest in the north and the consistent environmental destruction brought about by a global trading system that will lead to the loss of all our livelihoods in the long run.
The defence estimates make much, as Conservative Members often do, about the sale of arms around the world. I mentioned earlier the question of human rights abuses in countries to which we sell arms. At the moment, many people are concerned about the situation in Indonesia. I was delighted when the Nobel prize was awarded to the bishop in East Timor and to José Ramos Horta for his work in opposing the illegal occupation of East Timor.
Sadly, Britain is a major arms supplier to Indonesia, and that fact is used as a diplomatic bulwark by the regime in Jakarta to continue to oppress the Timorese people. Hawk aircraft have been used to bomb Indonesian villages, and if anyone doubts my word, they can meet people from East Timor, who can give chapter and verse on what happened.
We then have the question of arms exports by this country, their subsidy by the Ministry of Defence, and the amount spent on promoting the sale of arms. We appear to be spending an inordinate amount promoting arms sales. Indeed, 750 people are employed by the Defence Exports Services Organisation promoting arms sales, while only 1,000 people are employed by the Department of Trade and Industry to promote the other 98 per cent. of British exports around the world.
Our obsession with selling arms around the world blinds us to human rights abuses. Because of the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia, the British Government are in no position to criticise what goes on there, any more than what goes on in any other Gulf state or Indonesia. We are in no position to criticise the destruction of Diego Garcia and the removal of people from it 30 years ago because of our obsession with the arms industry, arms exports and—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the ten-minute limit on speeches.

Rev. William McCrea: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in an important defence estimates debate. It will come as no surprise to the House that I have little in common with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I shall approve the defence estimates before us as I believe that is the responsible position that hon. Members should take.
I wish to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for the excellent equipment provided to our soldiers to allow them to fight aggressors and save lives, not only at home but worldwide. They are carrying out their duties with sensitivity and expertise. I join other hon. Members who have said that they are proud of our armed forces. I, too, am proud of their efforts.
This debate is overshadowed by the brutal and cruel murder of Warrant Officer James Bradwell as a result of the IRA bomb attack on the Army headquarters in Lisburn. I express my appreciation to all the men and women who serve in Northern Ireland with great expertise and tremendous courage in the face of a vile aggressor. No one can fully understand the pain and grief that


Warrant Officer James Bradwell's family experiences, except those who have been in the same valley of sorrow. No words will comfort his grieving family circle, but I trust that the expression of our sympathy will help them in the midst of their time of great bereavement. It was a dastardly murder, unjustified and blatantly sectarian.
It would be easy to leave our grieving at that and just move on, but the Government have a responsibility to bring to justice those who planned and perpetrated that carnage. The Ministry of Defence and the Government are responsible for explaining how such an attack was permitted to penetrate what was boasted to be the best protected Army headquarters in the United Kingdom. There is little point in spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on equipment and personnel if that manpower cannot be properly deployed to protect itself.
The blame for the attack cannot be placed on any soldier or mistake made in that Army base. It lies fairly and squarely with the IRA murderers, and that must be clearly stated. It also lies on the shoulders of their political masters, Adams and McGuinness. When Martin McGuinness was before the court in the Irish Republic in 1992, he said that he was very proud to have been the IRA commander in Londonderry, yet certain hon. Members wanted to parade Adams along the corridors of this House. Thankfully, the House was spared that incident and the nausea of witnessing the likes of those who will not utter a word of condemnation against the IRA murder gangs' activities but seek to hide under a cloak of some kind of democracy.
The Prime Minister has been strong in his condemnation of the bomb attack, as he should be; but the grave reality for him and his Government is that, had they heeded those who told them that the so-called "peace process" was started on a phoney premise and that it was a tactical move by the IRA to squeeze concessions from the Government, the security apparatus in Northern Ireland would not have dropped its guard. In that respect, the Government were foolish with the lives of their citizens in Northern Ireland. They relied on the groundless trust that they had developed with the Irish Government and through their contacts with IRA-Sinn Fein, which suggested that the IRA would not return to bombing Northern Ireland or to the bombing campaign on the mainland.
Well, the IRA has returned, and has returned with a vengeance. Instead of sobering up to the realities, the security forces and the civilian population are put further at risk by a policy of refusing to close the political door to Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government remain determined to bring the Provisional IRA into the process, despite the bombing. The bomb at Thiepval is not the first in the latest round of IRA bombings and, sadly, it will not be the last. The IRA will use any tactic—a phoney peace if that suits their game, or war—to achieve their goal of crushing the British in Ulster.
The Government have not faced that reality. They pretend that they can make a working assumption that the IRA means peace when it says it. They asked the IRA to say that there would be a "permanent" ceasefire, but it would not. The reality is that it could not say "permanent", because it did not mean it and had no intention of having a permanent ceasefire. I read a

document in this House at the time saying that the IRA had an agenda to which it was working closely, and that it was not a genuine ceasefire.
The Government continue to implement a softly softly security policy in the light of the peace talks in Stormont. The 100 security concessions made to the IRA—that is not my claim but is boasted in a document produced by the Northern Ireland Office—have not been retracted. One would have thought that the Government would withdraw every concession that they made to the IRA in the course of a phoney truce, but those 100 concessions still stand, and the demand goes on for more. Not only are the Government inviting more trouble from the IRA but, by such a policy, they are preparing the ground for it to destroy Northern Ireland.
Others are in that messy deal as well. The Government have given in to pressure from America, Dublin and the IRA to make a deal with the IRA. They want a settlement no matter what the cost. In the past few weeks, we have seen that the price must be paid. It was paid by Warrant Officer Bradwell. Sadly, if measures sufficient to meet the needs in Northern Ireland are not taken against the murderers, it will be paid by many others before this process is done.
To the Government, the present process is about one thing: getting the IRA to the table. Sadly, Her Majesty's Opposition are playing the same game. The process is about Sinn Fein-IRA and its needs and aspirations—everyone else is secondary. The process is not progressing the aims of the Union—which I believe in and which the Prime Minister has stated so many times—and it is not about achieving decommissioning. My constituents were very hurt when they heard that, if guns were handed over by the IRA or other paramilitary organisations as part of an amnesty in Northern Ireland, they would not be tested ballistically. For example, when my cousin was murdered—when the IRA came to the door—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

8 pm

Mr. Barry Jones: Like the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), I honour the memory of Warrant Officer Bradwell. When I think about the emergency in Northern Ireland, I am filled with admiration for the professionalism and the discipline of the British soldiers in Northern Ireland. I do not think that any other nation could have coped with that challenge over so many years with such bravery, discipline and professionalism.
Two important aerospace factories and one RAF maintenance unit are located in my constituency and employ more than 4,000 people. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence and its Ministers have a huge influence, directly or indirectly, over employment and prosperity in the community that I represent. Ministers' decisions have crucial consequences in north-east Wales and in neighbouring Cheshire and Wirral communities. Ministry of Defence procurement can make or break the aerospace industry and clearly will decide the future of British Aerospace plc.
I turn first to RAF Sealand. I have explained my distaste for market testing as a commercial philosophy. However, as the Government insist on operating it, I am driven to state that RAF Sealand's in-house bid must win


against Brown and Root and GEC. Most of the United Kingdom's defence electronics industry wants RAF Sealand to remain under Government control, as whoever operates it has a stranglehold over the maintenance of most MOD combat systems. RAF Sealand maintains two thirds of RAF electronics work and critical Army and Navy systems.
I am pleased to announce that BAE Dynamics, Cossor, Racal Electronics plc, Lucas, Siemens and Shorts have joined the Sealand alliance to support the in-house bid. My 1,600 RAF constituents have achieved 35 per cent. more output with 14 per cent. fewer people. That is a brilliant achievement but, regrettably, £1 million was spent compiling the in-house bid. More money could have been saved for the taxpayer without the hassle of market testing.
I do not want to see more than 300 RAF service men forced to work under industry control. I think that there is a conflict of interest under market testing: does the service man do what is best for his line manager and the shareholder or what is best for the RAF and the taxpayer? That is the weakness of market testing. I state with great conviction that only the in-house bid enhances the Ministry of Defence's intelligent customer status. I am grateful to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for his accessibility and his patience in allowing me to bring deputations to him on the matter.
The dark cloud of market testing has hung over RAF Sealand for more than two years. It has dampened spirits and impeded morale. There is good leadership at the base and co-operation from trade unions. With gritted teeth, they have saved the day so far. If the Government want RAF Sealand to remain a world-class outfit which supports the best flyers in the world, they must ensure that the in-house bid wins. If it works, please do not fix it.
I seek the Minister's help with another matter. Raytheon, a United States worldwide company, is located near RAF Sealand. The Raytheon service centre, which will remain after the other jobs are lost, would employ more survivors if the Ministry of Defence were to send its Dominee aircraft—effectively the Hawker jet—to my constituency for servicing. On behalf of my beleaguered constituents, I ask for Ministry of Defence contracts for the servicing of Dominee aircraft. If that were to happen, we could save many jobs and avoid compulsory redundancies.
Secondly, Ministers could assist by asking British Aerospace Airbus, which is recruiting across the runway from Raytheon Jets, to take on as many as possible of those who will soon be made redundant at Raytheon. l ask the Minister to use his undoubted influence in that area.
My third point refers to the future large aircraft. Has the programme moved forward? Has the European staff requirement set firm parameters for the aircraft in terms of size, shape, speed, range and propulsion—presumably turbo props? I believe that it has and I hope that the Minister will confirm that in his winding-up speech. Will the first delivery of the future large aircraft be made in May 2004, with a pre-launch phase from January 1997 to July 1998? I believe that that is so. Some 2,200 members of the airbus work force at Broughton in my constituency want some answers about that project.
When will the letter of intent from the eight future large aircraft nations become operative? It must be soon. What about work share? Will my constituents at Airbus

Broughton be asked to build the wings of the aircraft? They build the wings for all the airbus aircraft and they are brilliantly successful. I hope that they will benefit if this project goes forward.
Have the air forces of Europe endorsed the future large aircraft as meeting operational requirements and equalling the capability of the American C17? My constituents remain concerned about budgetary problems in France and Germany regarding the future large aircraft. Perhaps the Euro currency is taking precedence in those two countries—I do not know. However, if France and Germany do not get a move on, the Americans may slip in and offer the Lockheed C17 as an alternative. That would be a terrible blow to the project.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are using all their diplomatic skills to get France and Germany to make an urgent commitment to that project. Do the Government believe that France and Germany will declare for the future large aircraft at their summit on 8 December? I hope that they will. They have dragged their feet so far and I think that the Americans are watching hungrily for their opportunity. If we went American again after the C120, my constituents would cry treason; they would have no patience with such a decision. My constituents want the British Government and the MOD to back a British, or at least a European, project.
My last words are to the Minister. I ask him to declare tonight, certainly before midnight, that the Government will order 40 to 50 of the FLA.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In the 10 minutes that I have, I had thought to address five defence themes for the next term of our Government. However, we have heard speeches of such importance that I cannot fail to respond to one or two points.
I have every sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about the Raytheon jets facility. If the 32 Squadron HS125s that are stationed at Northolt in my constituency and have their third-line service elsewhere could be serviced at Hawarden, I should be delighted.
The speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) really brought home to the House the fact that the Labour party is not one party on defence. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are as one on defence, as they are on many things these days, but the Labour party is fundamentally divided within itself on the subject. The idea that the hon. Member for Islington, North and some of his hon. Friends are proposing about the merits of vulnerability is belied by all the experience of the past 20 years—the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets because the Afghans were so weak, the invasion of the Falkland Islands, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, and the horrors perpetrated in Bosnia by the essentially Serbian-controlled Yugoslav national army—and yet Labour Members enjoin further vulnerability. The human misery that military weakness has caused should surely behove us to defend ourselves adequately.
The moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) brought home to us the reality of the situation of the people of Northern Ireland today. We are grateful to him and proud of the


loyal people of Northern Ireland. We also pay a warm tribute of gratitude to the warrant officer who was killed and to the many people who have made the supreme sacrifice in the defence of our country of Ulster.
We must get even further away from the Maginot mentality of static defence, the legacy of the cold war. We have done this to a large extent, but an armoured British division remains stationed in Germany with all the apparatus of a fixed military presence: the married quarters, the schools, the swimming pools, the gardeners, the mess stewards. In all—eliberately excluding the Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—he whole apparatus costs the British taxpayer £943 million a year, of which £252 million is paid to locally employed civilians. We should be employing civilians in this country when so many bases are closing and so many facilities are folding.
With the money saved, we should be investing in extra mobility and flexibility, which are what war prevention requires. We have made some good investments: the C-130J, the EH101 medium transport helicopter and the improved Chinook mark 2. I hate to say it to my erstwhile friend— say friend because we came into the House together, although he sits on the opposite side—he hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, but what the Royal Air Force requires is not the future large aircraft, which will cost a great deal to develop, but the C-17— heavy lifter to take a main battle tank over huge ranges so that large loads can be deployed rapidly. I am pleased that the Select Committee, under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), is examining the issue of heavy lift.
Good investments are also being made for the Royal Marines: the landing platform docks Albion and Bulwark which are to be constructed, in addition to HMS Ocean with its landing platform for helicopters. Mobility is an important capability and we need to invest more in it.
We also need to invest more in training. I shall mention just one subject—he future of staff and officer cadet training. Most armed forces are investing more and more in training while we are doing the opposite. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again on Greenwich. The fact that the joint staff training scheme has not worked gives us an opportunity to go back to this old issue and, surely, locate the tri-service staff college at Greenwich. I would also put a tri-service cadet college in that august setting as a lead-in to the individual service academies.
We also need to make better use of our Reserves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. I would add just one point about the opportunity afforded by the sponsored Reserve—the idea that contractors who are working for the support of the armed services can be mobilised in uniform in time of emergency or war. I hope, too, that the example set by No. 1 maritime headquarters unit of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—located at RAF Northolt in my constituency—will be better followed. It provides support for the maritime headquarters at Northwood and I hope that it will provide support for the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood also.
My final point concerns procurement. If we are to have such small armed forces, they must be well trained and have an expansion capability with Reserves, but they must

also have the very best equipment. This is crucial for flexibility and mobility. I mentioned some of the programmes. We have seen from the Eurofighter episode how bedevilled with politics some of the European programmes can become. In the case of Eurofighter, the problem was the nefarious ways of economic and monetary union and the fact that the Maastricht criteria appear to be more important to the German Parliament than the modernisation of the Luftwaffe and of the three other air forces which require the Eurofighter 2000. It is a frightening prospect, which is why it is so necessary to retain the balance between European procurement and co-operation with the United States. Without that balance, we shall never have a competitive indigenous industry of our own.
I return to the theme that I touched on briefly in a question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State during his opening remarks about the European armaments agency which is to be developed from the Franco-German agency as a quadripartite agency, to which we are supposedly to sign up. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to think carefully. Do we really need another bureaucracy? Co-operation across frontiers should not be driven by officials in Bonn and Brussels.
In any case, are the new officials to be drawn from NATO or the national defence ministries? How are they to co-operate with the conference of national armaments directors within NATO? The latter is supposedly harmonising operational requirements not just for four European members but right across the alliance to secure proper interoperability and the best use of resources. To whom are the officials to be answerable? Are not our American friends correct in assuming that there must at any rate be a predisposition to favour the European product over an American or other purchase?
Ministers must think very carefully. Is the multi-role armoured utility vehicle the right project to get the agency off the ground? We have good vehicle constructors in this country, including GKN, Alvis and Vickers.
I hope that those five points will be useful to the Government in their next term.

Mr. Andrew Miller: This has been an extremely interesting debate. A number of hon. Members started with the point that I intend to make now. It is a matter that is particularly poignant, as I visited Lisburn barracks a couple of weeks ago only to find that a terrible tragedy occurred there just a few days later. It really does bring it firmly home to one, and my heart goes out to Warrant Officer Bradwell's family. It is an appalling tragedy and most regrettable.
I have had contact with people who have been affected by the bombs placed in the north-west of England, in Manchester and Warrington. When it gets that close to home, it makes one think very seriously about the issues involved. The Cheshire Regiment—my county regiment—is currently based in Ballykelly, and I often have discussions with the parents of young men who are part of that regiment and engaged in very important duties on behalf of the nation.
A number of points have been raised, but because of the time I shall have to leave them. I shall, however, praise Ministers on one point and personally thank all the


MOD people who were involved this year in the management of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have found the time that I have spent on the scheme extremely enlightening and would encourage hon. Members who have not had the opportunity of participating to do so. Because of age profiles, few of us will have had the opportunity to serve in the forces. Having been brought up in a military environment, and in later years living in Portsmouth, I thought it about time that I got on the other side of the dockyard fence to find out what was happening in the Navy.
I have been able to identify a number of matters about which the Government should think carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) touched briefly on the unsung work undertaken by the Navy in the anti-drugs war—a real war of enormous proportions. I have seen the scale of the success recently achieved by the West Indies guard ship and the work that is going on in conjunction with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but it is an area of the Navy's activities that is hardly mentioned outside. If people are looking for ideas about how to promote a positive role for that force today, that is one war in which every family in the land would welcome our participation. I urge that consideration be given to that.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the role of the West Indies guard ship, and I applaud him for raising the matter of drugs, but is he not aware that we already mention it? Every time the West Indies guard ship scores a coup, which is all too regularly, we make it very public and it gets good coverage, but anything that he or any other hon. Member on either side of the House can do to help to get the message across about the vital role that it plays would be hugely welcome.

Mr. Miller: There have to be a few things on which we agree across the Floor of the House, despite some of the rhetoric of the debate. The drugs war is an important war and one in which we must firmly engage.
One area that concerns me—I pressed this point a couple of times yesterday and found a less than satisfactory response—is the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. Given that we are now in an era when countries such as Iran are holding control over SSKs, we really must be much more positive about that part of our flotilla. Frankly, if I had been asked a couple of years ago about the future development of our submarine fleet, I would not, perhaps, have taken the same view as I do now, but when one considers the world ownership of submarines, one sees that that issue needs to be addressed firmly, especially given the comments made by military leaders of some countries who believe that the world is growing as far as their territorial ambitions are concerned, now that they have submarines in their fleet.
One thing that was apparent during every visit I made was morale. Much has been said about morale, and there are areas where improvements are undoubtedly occurring, but in the Navy there is undoubtedly one constant theme coming through the force—that of gapping. When vessels are back in their home port, facilities must be made to enable people not just to take shore leave but to take leave back at their homes with their families. This calls into question the legitimacy of the continued process of civilianisation. I can see that there are arguments in some

areas, but the MOD needs to think very carefully about the implications of continued civilianisation for morale. There needs to be a more positive approach to that.
There are logistical problems. There are serious morale problems. There are, for example, attempts to make a number of the bases a little more like home. I was somewhat concerned to discover, not a million miles from your own constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, a McDonald's being built in Devonport. I hope that the MOD will insist at the very least that it serves British beef. Attempts are being made to improve morale, but they do not address the key issue of getting people back to their homes. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I shall make one blunt criticism about the Secretary of State's speech yesterday. He spent several paragraphs—I have just re-read it in Hansard—attacking the Labour party conference. I thought about that in the context of the very clear and concise speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and the brilliant speech at the Labour party conference by a young mother from Chester who argued the case about the defence of this country in clear and concise terms. If one compares that with the activities of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on defence, where has he been on British Aerospace, Saighton Camp, Sealand, the Army pay office—on all the issues raised by my hon. Friend? That young mother has more knowledge in her little finger about the defence of this country than the hon. Member who represents City of Chester. I really hope that the Government will look more carefully at what is said at the Labour party conference before making such comments.
Last year, I was privileged to be part of a delegation, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, meeting some folk in NATO. One of the great privileges of that was to be part of the early discussions with NATO about the eradication of mines. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sterling work that he has put in. Commitments have now been made so that part of NATO's research and development budget will be directed towards the disposal of mines. That is a great credit to the Labour party. I do not think that there is an hon. Member in the House who would deny the unpleasantness of that weapon and the reasons why, in a post-war situation, we have to get them cleared up, particularly in some countries where appalling films are coming out about them. That element of our amendment tonight is particularly important and I hope that the House will take it on board.
There is so much more to say, but in 10 minutes one cannot cover everything. However, I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the observations that I have made, particularly with regard to the armed forces scheme, because they are worth considering.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made a thoughtful speech, based on his recent experience of the armed forces, which I followed with keen interest.
Those of us who maintain contact with the armed forces through our constituencies, or perhaps through the Defence Committee or the North Atlantic Assembly, have


many people to thank for the time that they commit to briefing us and telling us of their activities. We congratulate them on their efforts. We are well served by capable and determined men and women demonstrating old fashioned qualities of discipline and reliability, every one of them skilled and well trained. They are people of enormous drive with positive attitudes. We expect a great deal of them, but we must be vigilant not to take them for granted, to take advantage of them or to impose on them unacceptable terms and conditions.
The word "overstretch" keeps coming up in defence debates. It is the jargon word for repetitive postings, disruption of family life, insufficient periods between postings to Northern Ireland, increased duty on watch when a ship is in port, or working long hours to keep aircraft in service.
Men and women join the armed forces for a job that is different and challenging. Commanders want it to be just that, and our task as parliamentarians is to back them and give them the resources to make it so.
We are coming out of a period of poor recruitment, which we knew was coming. Many hon. Members will know the acronym MARILYN, standing, scarcely credibly, for manning and recruitment in the lean years of the 90s. We knew that there would be a recruiting problem in the 90s. We must now do all that we can to ensure that recruits come into the armed forces and stay in. We must provide a first-class and stimulating career for young men and women, and a decade or so after they have joined we must provide an attractive continuing career for trained and experienced men and women.
Young men and women may accept anti-social postings, but men and women in their 30s and 40s, when they are trained and particularly valuable and skilful, probably with families, will leave if they find the imposition on them and their families too great. We must therefore provide sport and adventurous training, watch out for the symptoms of overstretch and provide resources to back the commanders.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has just re-entered the Chamber. I listened to his speech with great interest. He is the acceptable face of Labour on the subject of defence and a companionable and popular Member. I listened to him carefully, and he made the ragbag of an amendment tabled by the official Opposition sound as if it refers to a review of overstretch. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman criticised overstretch and then said that there must be, or should be, a review of overstretch.
The amendment says that there must be
a long-term strategic overview which can only be achieved through the establishment of a strategic defence review",
but we all know that such a review would be a review downwards, not upwards. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friends know that, if there were a defence review, it would result in a defence reduction rather than an increase. I defy him to deny that.

Dr. Reid: For the hon. Gentleman's elucidation, there are three general elements in any such review. The first concerns commitments to resources, and I encompassed overstretch within that; the second is the interweaving of foreign affairs and defence; the third is the interweaving

of trade and industry and defence. Those three elements would form the core of any defence review. With regard to expenditure, we made two things absolutely plain. First, we will spend what is necessary for the defence of our country and, secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads our statement, such a review will not—not—be a cover for cuts.

Mr. Viggers: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I know the Labour party's defence record over the years, and I know the defence record of our proud party over the years. I maintain, and I think that the country believes and knows, that it is the Conservative party which believes fervently in defence and will provide the resources, as it is doing, to maintain proper defences.
In the few remaining moments of my speech, I want to focus on just one area of defence which is dealt with in two thirds of page 91 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates"—medical care. Medical care is a crucial and central part of the teeth of defence, not part of the tail of defence. Primary care is in the front line of defence. One quarter of every army patrol is medically trained, and primary care is the responsibility of the single services, the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is a front-line operation, not a rear echelon one.
We must have quality, which we certainly have, but we should also have the quantity of defence capacity which will enable us to fulfil our responsibility in primary care and in secondary care. I see from the statistics section of the Statement that we have gone from 11 field ambulances and hospitals in 1975 to 12 among the regular forces in 1996, and from 15 to 18 in the Territorial Army in the same period of 21 years. That does not seem to equate to the facts as I understand them, which show that the numbers of hospitals, beds and medical staff in the armed forces have been reduced.
When I and my colleagues on the Defence Committee visit the royal hospital Haslar in my constituency next month, we will look carefully to ensure that we have the number of trained medical personnel available to fulfil the front-line function and the secondary function. We will want to know how many personnel will be available in the regular armed forces and how many will be available in times of emergency in the reserve forces, bearing in mind the reluctance of hospital trusts to encourage reserve commitment and my concern, which remains, that hospitals may be reluctant to appoint people to civilian appointments if they have a reserve commitment, thus weakening the reserve commitment to the medical section of the armed forces.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend knows that I have three minutes remaining, whereas he will have some time at the end of the debate.
The second area of medical care is secondary care. I am delighted that, with the choice of the royal hospital Haslar as the tri-service hospital, backed up by Ministry of Defence hospital units at Derriford, Frimley Park and Peterborough, the area of defence training will be at the royal medical defence college and that HMS Dolphin has been identified as a suitable site for that location. HMS Dolphin is opposite the royal naval hospital Haslar and having the secondary care unit there will make it easy to interchange the teaching and the practical roles within the armed forces.
I am satisfied with the current shape of the secondary care agency as it is evolving. It is right that we should take account of the fact that changing medical and surgical techniques are leading to shorter hospital stays, that the increased transportation of armed forces personnel means that patients might be brought back to the United Kingdom and NHS hospitals more quickly than in the past, and that the choice of the Gosport area allows a wider range of patients to be seen by armed forces doctors who usually treat fit and young male personnel, whereas in the Gosport-south Hampshire area they have a wide range of patients on whom to practise.
For some 80 years, HMS Dolphin has been the home of the submarine service, and it was a great disappointment when it was decided that the submarine service would leave HMS Dolphin. However, Fort Blockhouse, the home of HMS Dolphin, has served the armed forces and the country for nearly 500 years. I am confident that, as we move on, it will provide an ideal centre for military medical excellence.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I should like to touch on two problems: NATO enlargement and the new challenges facing Britain in terms of military procurement.
On NATO enlargement, it is traditional that, after the end of a great war, the loser enters a period of instability and turbulence. That is the condition that Europe now finds itself in. The cold war ended, perhaps, in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall and the great events in central and eastern Europe. We must deal with a Russia that is unstable and giving contradictory signals and extend that area of stability which is the NATO alliance and seek, so far as we can, to influence positively potential regions of turbulence beyond NATO.
We are coming to the point at which the future security architecture of the new Europe is beginning to emerge through the fog. Those outlines were delineated in September in the Stuttgart speech of Secretary Christopher, followed by that of German Foreign Minister Kinkel. Their aim is to try to keep as much movement as possible to preserve flexibility, yet to be sensitive to Russia's problems.
On that architecture, it is now clear that the terms of the first wave of NATO's enlargement will be known in the Brussels summit in December, followed by the meeting in late spring next year. Presumably on or near the 50th anniversary of NATO, in April 1999, that first wave will take effect. We know that the Visegrad countries, with the exception, alas, of Slovakia—because, under Meciar, it has slipped badly from the democratic way—will be among that first wave. We are less certain about whether Slovenia will be there and even less certain about Romania, but the shape of that first group is emerging.
Russia will then have to have its proper interests dealt with. That will mean that its concerns about the boundaries of the new NATO and of the conditions of enlargement will need to be considered sensitively without giving it a veto. That means, it appears, a new charter between NATO and Russia, in which Russia will be given a special status. That raises problems.
There are at the same time a series of regional alliances—not only Visegrad, but the Baltic sea and the Barents sea alliances and a series of positive bilateral

treaties that defy what has happened in history. Only last month, we had the Timisoara treaty between Romania and Hungary. Having served in the embassy in Hungary for some time, I understand the historic resonances of the problem over Transylvania. Russia is seeking to build up the Organisation for Co-operation and Security in Europe because of its status in it. There is likely to be a new directorate of the OSCE, which will be determined at the Lisbon summit in December, so the broad lines of that security architecture are looming through the mist.
The problem is those countries that, for a number of reasons, are not privileged to be in the first wave, or perhaps in any wave, of NATO enlargement. In history, they are the countries in the middle. One interesting perspective on European history is that either Russia or Germany is dominant and it is middle Europe where the problems arise, so the question on enlargement that I pose to the Government is: how will we seek to reassure and look after the interests of countries that will not be in the first wave? I think especially of the Baltics. A sensitive response is needed.
How much thought is being given, for example, to twinning NATO countries with the Baltics and others—the Bulgarians and Romanians? What effort will the Ministry of Defence make to go into those countries to assist in training? What will be the shape of a super-partnership for peace or other arrangements that will be reached? In terms of the Baltic countries, will we seek a new regional security structure and try to subcontract much of the work there to the Scandinavians, who have a geographic and historic relationship with the Baltics? We cannot leave that unclear. There must be movement to those countries that would otherwise feel isolated and neglected.
On the new challenges on procurement, my starting point is that the current problems were foreseeable, but were not foreseen by the Government. Historians will see that we have missed a series of opportunities in the real procurement challenges. Way back in 1994, Ernst and Young produced an excellent report that concluded that, increasingly, there were two axes in the west in military production: the United States and Europe. We have to make a choice. We must avoid fortress Europe, but unless and until European nations begin to pool and merge their resources, we shall opt out of the race to be prime contractors for the major projects.
Market forces will not do it. Even since that Ernst and Young report, which was based on pooling data of industrial concerns for a year or two before, there have been even greater signs of challenge from the United States—not just the mega-mergers, the Lockheed Martins and so on, but evidence of increasing United States pressure on third countries such as those in the Gulf. We see it now in respect of the fighter aircraft in central Europe, and on Hungary, Slovenia and Austria. There is pressure to take United States products rather than Europe's.
We have a choice. Do we seek simply to keep our options open? Do we seek to forget the challenges? Or do we seek to build a European defence entity that is not anti-America, but recognises that, if we do not, we shall be swamped by the size of the United States industrial machine? There are signs that we have more obstacle than most countries.
We accepted the value-for-money concepts of Sir Peter Levene, but they could be defined so narrowly in buying off the shelf—the C130-Js—that we would effectively avoid wider industrial and European perspectives. There have been some unfortunate remarks from Sir Peter Levene's successor about there being no polarisation between the United States and Europe. They appeared in the Financial Times survey on procurement in August. I hope that he was misquoted.
I must mention the signal that the Secretary of State for Defence gave in his speech last year, and the Government's posturing on Europe which gives a clear signal to our European partners that we are not serious about Europe. That is part of the internal squabble in the governing party which, alas, has unfortunate repercussions for Britain.
There are, however, some positive signs—not only the comparison between this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and last year's and the Government's response to the excellent first joint report of the two Select Committees, but various things that have been said. Even the Secretary of State, with his known anti-European prejudices, is being dragged kicking and screaming to support Britain's interests.
I shall end just with these questions in relation to procurement. I accept that there were wrong signals, for example, on Apache and on the C130-J, but the batch of decisions on procurement in July were positive. The response—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr.Bruce George.

Mr. Bruce George: I suppose I should be grateful that the Conservative party has run out of speakers, or some of my colleagues and I would not have been called. If we wait long enough, the time will come when Conservative Members keep out of the way. After giving a rhetorical flourish of criticism of the Labour party, hon. Members who have come to support their own Government have settled down to spend their time politely criticising them. Our debate on the defence estimates—the last before the general election—will give us, and more importantly the public, a chance to evaluate the truth of the Government's portrayal of themselves as a brilliant Government who are pro-defence and their portrayal of Labour as a party that comprises a bunch of pacifists who are unfit for office.
Towards the end of his speech, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement listed a number of procurement items that are to be ordered. In doing so he seemed to display the philosophy that the threat of a public hanging concentrates the mind. The imminent election has made the Government seek to give the impression that they have been funding defence projects almost ad infinitum, but we know that that is not so.
Any Opposition who neglect defence suffer the consequences: the Labour party deservedly suffered the consequences in 1983 and, to a lesser extent, in 1987. But Governments who neglect defence do so, not just at their own peril, but, more importantly, to the detriment of national security. I fear that the depth and nature of the defence cuts over the past 10 or 15 years have been to the detriment of national security.
I wonder whether the Government will attack the Labour party as they have done in previous elections. The Conservative party may be called the stupid party, but it is not that stupid. Its members must realise that they are on dangerous ground in thinking that the Labour party is the same Labour party as they faced in those halcyon days when the Tory party was identified with defence. If the Conservative party tries to make the defence issue one of confidence, it will suffer the consequences—I hope that it takes that course. I do not think that it will have the opportunity, as it had in 1987, of commissioning posters of soldiers holding their hands in the air in surrender. A consensus is emerging that the Labour party has become much better, while the Government have become much worse.
On the available evidence, with defence expenditure at an historic low and falling, it would be as sane for the Conservative party to proclaim itself the party of defence as it would be for it to proclaim itself the party of law and order when crime levels are at an historic high and rising. Labour is not the party of the 1980s. That period was an abberation for us in the same way—although it was less damning to the country—as the little holiday from realism undertaken by the Conservative party in the 1930s, which had disastrous consequences for this country and mankind. If the Conservative party wants to delve into history, I shall be delighted to join in an historical debate on defence.
The Labour party with which the Conservatives are now dealing is in the tradition not of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but of the party that joined the coalition in the first world war and recognised the rise of Hitler long before the Government of Baldwin and Chamberlain. The Opposition brought down the Government who had brought us to the verge of military catastrophe while the majority of Government Members sat on their hands or supported the Government. It is the party of Wilson and Callaghan, who sustained the nuclear deterrent and maintained defence expenditure at a higher level than Tory Governments who followed them.
The Labour party has little to be anxious about. We have learnt the lessons of the 1980s. If the subject is to be raised in the election, the Labour party should do more than hope that it does not become an issue; it should go on the attack. The Tories will say that defence expenditure has slipped a little. Let us remind the public that, when Labour left office in 1979, the budget for that year was 4.9 per cent.—the average was 4.55 per cent. for that period of office. The budget has now declined to 3 per cent. and will probably fall to 2.6 per cent.
Therefore, the chasm that existed between this country's defence expenditure under the last Labour Government and the Thatcher Government and the defence expenditure of our European partners has, under this Government, narrowed to a fraction. Opposition Members who want to see defence expenditure fall to the level of our European and NATO partners should perhaps support the Government in the Lobby this evening, because the Tory Government have narrowed the gap far more than a Labour party conference would wish to have done.
The Select Committee on Defence stated that the defence budget had been trimmed consistently since the inception of "Options for Change". The Select Committee has frequently stated that it is unhappy with the process of cut upon cut. It said that there had been no period of


financial calm—just the opposite. No plan seems to survive the next public expenditure round. Every activity is reviewed and revised again.
The priority in the public expenditure survey 1994 must surely be, as never before, to leave defence expenditure well alone. That did not happen, to such an extent that our Committee has given a warning that, unless the Government can come up with something serious and state that there will be no further cuts of any kind, it cannot recommend the defence estimates to the House. The absence of Conservative Members on the Committee suggests that they are going to sit on their hands or endorse the Government's defence policy despite the commitment given.
I was recently in Portsmouth, which houses the little that is left of our Navy. I seem to see more boats marked Brittany Ferries than representing the Royal Navy—so many ships were available for sale. I spoke to people in the merchant marine—there is not much of that left. The Government's record on the Navy is appalling.
The Defence Committee has been told that things will be all right on the night and that perhaps it was overstating the case on overstretch. But we were right and the Government were wrong. We have received pompous lectures on Gulf war syndrome. I suspect that, the next time we meet, any Government representative will show slightly more humility.
As for procurement, we are all aware of a number of items that have arrived late, have not arrived at all or have arrived greatly over cost. Phoenix, endorsed by the Government, represents the Government: its life span is about the same. The Government first began to think about something such as Phoenix in 1980; we shall get it in about the year 2000. Phoenix and the Government are both much maligned, and deservedly so. They both crash frequently—the difference is that the Government rescued Phoenix, but the electorate will not rescue the Government.
The idea of the Government wrapping themselves in the flag and then giving over Ministry of Defence housing to a Japanese consortium is bizarre. There are some charitable aspects, and I suppose we must forgive and forget. The consortium representing the successful bidders contains one Scottish member, so we may have a Robert the Bruce close or a William Wallace street. We must forgive the Americans, so perhaps we shall have a street named after John Paul Jones, who successfully defeated the British Navy. But I resent the idea of an Admiral Togo or an Admiral Yamamoto avenue. If we are to give over things to those countries that fought us in the war, perhaps we should have a consortium of Zulus, Sikhs and Sudanese to complete the farce.
This evening I should have been at the annual conference of the Defence Police Federation. I am afraid that the Government's vendetta against it and the Ministry of Defence police continues.
On a more positive note, rather than let the GKN Warrior production line fade away, I ask the Government to hear the pleas that have been made by Members on both sides of the House and seriously consider the offer made on the GKN Warrior mortar proposal. If the Government want the production line to continue, they must take positive action.
In its conclusions, the Defence Committee said:

We cannot recommend the 1996 Statement on the Defence Estimates to the House unless Ministers make clear in the debate that this year's statement will not again be undermined by further defence cuts in the 1996 Budget or by any other means.
That assurance has not been given. If Conservative Members are not prepared to give the Government the kick up the backside that they deserve, I hope that, at least privately, they have the courage to say that enough is enough, the cuts have gone too far and it is about time that we started building up our defences and not destroying them.

Mr. John Hutton: I fully endorse the tributes that have been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the professionalism and dedication of the British armed forces. Service in the armed forces is public service of the highest order and we are lucky to have so many talented and patriotic men and women who are prepared to serve the United Kingdom in such a way. I especially praise the efforts of British service personnel in Bosnia who have made such a major contribution to the NATO-led peace implementation force.
I am sad that the Secretary of State for Defence chose to begin his speech yesterday by saying that Labour Members do not care about the defence of this country. That is not true. Patriotism is not the preserve of only one party in this House, and Labour Members are just as concerned as anyone else to ensure that this country is properly defended. We have always made it clear that, under a Labour Government, that will continue to be so. It appears that the Secretary of State has not learnt the necessary lessons after his abysmal speech at last year's Conservative party conference.
It is worth looking behind Ministers' bogus rhetoric to study their record in recent years of managing the defence budget. The Government have presided over massive reductions in spending that have often appeared random and unintelligible and have drawn criticism from the Select Committee on Defence, former service chiefs and the defence industry itself, which often has to pick up the pieces resulting from the delays and confusion that have come to characterise the Government's procurement policies about which I shall say a little more later.
I am relieved that Ministers are now urgently looking into the exposure of British forces personnel to organophosphate chemicals during the Gulf war. I remind the Minister about one of my constituents, Corporal Mervyn Gray, about whom I wrote to him on 10 June. Corporal Gray was clearly exposed to massive amounts of organophosphates during the Gulf war but, despite the Government's announcement of an emergency review of such cases, he has not yet had any new or fresh contact with the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Minister has not forgotten him and will look into his case at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Soames: Has Corporal Gray been to the medical assessment panel?

Mr. Hutton: Yes, he has.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks to naval defence procurement and Government policy towards the defence industry as a whole. The defence industry is unique in


many ways. The Government are its only UK customer and have the power to determine in which international markets the industry can operate. That relationship means that the Government have a special responsibility towards defence companies which does not exist anywhere else in British industry. Sadly, that responsibility has not always been properly discharged. That has been especially true in relation to the rundown of defence spending in recent years.
Key procurement contracts are often the subject of chronic delays, with deadlines constantly being allowed to slip further and further behind schedule. That almost always results in further job losses in defence companies, as has sadly been so in my constituency at VSEL. A classic example of such delay was in relation to the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine contract. Work was due to start in 1994. The contract has not yet been let. When will it be let? A gap of at least three years has opened up. It is worth reminding ourselves that the last contract for an SSN was placed in 1986. That 11-year gap is unprecedented in the Royal Navy's history.
The White Paper makes extensive reference to the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine capability and the Government's desire to maintain it. It is hard to see such a desire reflected in the Government's handling of such a vital contract. What will be the operational consequences for the Royal Navy of that delay? There have also been extensive delays in finally placing the contract for the landing platform dock replacements. I am delighted that that contract has been placed and that VSEL in my constituency won it, but it, too, has been characterised by serious delay.
The contract for two new auxiliary oilers will also be very important to my constituency. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that contract will not be subject to similar delays, and that orders will be placed on schedule by the end of the year.
I share the hope of my hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) that we should all be aiming to develop a new national consensus on Britain's defence policy for the new millennium. Like them, I suspect that Tory Ministers are not up to that task.

Mr. David Jamieson: I shall keep my remarks extremely brief, because another hon. Member wishes to speak. I am sure that it will not go unnoticed outside the House that there have been more Labour Members than Conservative Members wishing to speak in this debate.
I want to make two simple points. I ask the Minister to deal in summing up with the important matter of service men who suffered from exposure to asbestos from the 1940s through to the 1960s. I repeat the requests that I put to him last year. First, he should find out how many such men are suffering—he can get that information from the War Pensions Agency. Secondly, what would be the cost of compensating those men at the same rate as dockyard workers are compensated? Thirdly, will he seriously consider some ex gratia payment for those men? If we ignore the dwindling number of men who are now dying, we shall continue a considerable injustice to men who are suffering seriously in the autumn of their lives.
Following the massive job losses in the dockyards, certain questions remain in respect of the privatisation of Devonport dockyard. We are, quite properly, asking those questions. First, should a dockyard that is so central to our strategic defence interests be in private hands? Secondly, could a privatised dockyard fall into undesirable or even hostile hands? Thirdly, can a dockyard working as a private company, with all the constraints that that entails, respond to sudden demands such as the Falklands or the Gulf war? I recall the response given to me two years ago by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who was then the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. He said then that that was impossible.
The answer to my first question is largely dependent on the answer to the other two. Yesterday, the Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) what is stability. I can tell him now what stability means to something such as our dockyard. It is a period of knowing where it is going; it is a period of knowing that there is a world of certainty; and it is when workers feel valued because there is a period in which they know they will have a job. Most of all, if the sale of Devonport dockyard goes through, it is a period in which the management and the workers of the company together can plan for the future not only of the dockyard, but of jobs in Plymouth.
I ask the Minister to address those important and essential matters. In particular, will he let us know when the negotiations for the D154 will be complete, so that the sale can be completed and we can move into a world of genuine stability?
I was delighted to hear the speeches made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and other Members on the Labour Front Bench. They were excellent speeches and confirm that Labour is now the party of defence—the party that will ensure that our future defence is secure.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I shall be brief and focus on a single issue: the future of the incomparable buildings in Greenwich which currently house the Royal Naval College.
In previous debates on defence estimates and the armed forces, we have highlighted the way in which the Government took an unwise decision to close the Greenwich complex and move the tri-service college elsewhere on the basis of dubious estimates and suspect figures that suggested that the costs of relocating to Camberley would be less than those of retaining a college in Greenwich. It has now become clear that those estimates and the assumptions behind them were false.
The Government's proposal for the relocation of the tri-service college is now unravelling. Staff and those attending the college now face the prospect of moving into temporary accommodation at Bracknell with a huge question mark hanging over their future at Camberley or possibly at another site. That cannot be the right way to handle the training of our senior staff in all services. The question must now be addressed whether we should have a further look at whether Greenwich might provide the appropriate location for all or part of the tri-service college.
The Greenwich complex is an incomparable set of buildings. Any other country that possessed such rich architecture with such important historic associations


would leap at the prospect of using them as a focus for service training. Few other countries would treat such a priceless piece of heritage with the curiously cavalier attitude displayed by the Government.
This evening, hon. Members on both sides have asked whether Greenwich could not or should not perform the function that it has performed exceptionally well for the past 120 years—that of a service college providing high-quality training for senior staff in the armed forces in an incomparable setting.
The issue must be reopened, and there is good logic behind re-examining whether Greenwich is not the appropriate site for the location of the tri-service college. I hope that if the Government do not have the decency to accept the fact that they have disgracefully mishandled this issue in the past, the incoming Government, next May, will re-examine the issue to determine whether we can establish a sensible, proper basis for service training in the wonderful buildings at Greenwich.

Mr. Paul Murphy: First, I should like to say how impressed I and other Opposition Members have been during the past two days with the robust and informed debate on the state of our defences. I am thinking, for example, of the speech—made from a constituency point of view—by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), and to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who dealt with a number of issues. What most interested me and other Opposition Members, however, were the references to consensus during the past two days, and the somewhat dramatic reaction of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the question whether there should be a consensus on defence matters.
There is a case for consensus on the major principles of how we defend our nation, but that does not affect how the Opposition must criticise the Government in their management of our defence. The Minister will recall that he and I led in Committee for our parties on the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Throughout that period, there was no question but that there was general agreement on the major principles that lay behind the Act.
That is a good example of consensus, as are the comments that have been made during the past two days about our armed forces, which undertake a huge variety of tasks at home and abroad. Opposition Members pay tribute to the men and women in our three armed forces, wherever they serve—in Britain and Northern Ireland or abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke of the new challenges now facing our defence forces. There are challenges in Northern Ireland, which has experienced the most tragic consequences in the past few weeks. There are challenges of the new weapons of mass destruction—which are still held worldwide, sometimes in the hands of unstable dictatorships.
We face the challenge of ethnic nationalism and political and religious extremism, such as we have witnessed in Afghanistan in the past month. There is the challenge of increasing crime and drug trafficking, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for

Ellesmere Port. There are challenges in a world in which, of 82 major conflicts between 1989 and 1992, all but three were civil wars.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) spoke about the enlargement of NATO. I was in Poland last week, and that country, among others, is very anxious to join NATO. We must, however, balance that with parallel agreements with Russia, which of course is still a major player in defence.
All these matters reflect the Labour party's view on what our policy should be on defence. My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned those important matters. The Labour party believes that we should play our role as members of the Security Council of the United Nations and of NATO in safeguarding the lives of many thousands of people across the world.
Two weeks ago, the Labour party conference once again emphasised Labour's commitment to the strong defence of our nation. The same conference committed Labour to working towards a nuclear-free world, but by a process of multilateral disarmament. We also realised that we need to keep our nuclear deterrent until multilateral agreements abolish the need for nations to keep weapons of mass destruction.
Although my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) hold their views with deep sincerity, those views do not represent the policy of the British Labour party. That policy was encapsulated in Blackpool two weeks ago in a conference resolution which clearly said that we are committed to keeping Trident until multilateral negotiations get rid of nuclear weapons from our planet.
The Secretary of State told his party conference—he repeated this yesterday—that Labour left wingers demanded the abolition of the nuclear deterrent and a drastic reduction in defence spending. He went on:
The Labour leadership typically responds by pandering to them.
I do not know whom he means by "the Labour leadership" in that respect. It is not the leader of the Labour party, it is not the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, it is not the shadow Cabinet, it is not the majority of members of the parliamentary party, and it certainly is not the Labour party conference. It is important to put on record the fact that the Labour party is as committed to the defence of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the Conservatives are, if not more so.
All the great changes referred to by me and others show the need for the proper strategic defence review referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) yesterday and by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North this afternoon. On being elected to office next year, we shall undertake such a review, which we hope will take no more than six months.
Why should our country be any different from any other country in the western world since the end of the cold war? We need a defence review to ensure that we match our foreign affairs needs, our trade and industry needs and our defence needs. In a recent Lords debate on the defence estimates, Field Marshal Lord Bramall said that, were Labour's defence review to happen—I assure the House that it will—it would have to consider foreign policy and trade policy in conjunction with defence policy.
I also want to make it abundantly clear that the review will provide the resources necessary for the proper defence of this country. No matter what the hon. Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have said, it will not be a device for making defence cuts, because it will be led by defence needs, not by the Treasury.
Why do we say that? Because the Government have done precisely the opposite during the past five years. Their problem is the way in which they have handled the inevitable changes. The cuts have been dictated not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Treasury. Change has been incompetently managed, there has been no strategic rationale, and the Government have even managed to lose their picture collections. The years of change -have been dominated by waste and inefficiency, by cost overruns and by a damaging gap between resources and commitments.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who is not here, made a good speech, in part. The bits which did not come from a Conservative central office briefing were sensible. Like other hon. Members on both sides, she referred to the overstretch of our armed forces.
In yesterday's debate, interestingly, the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) quoted what appeared to be a Conservative party document, which said:
Only the Conservatives can offer a period of stability both in terms of size and funding of the Armed Forces.
That, I suppose, is why, over the past six years, the Army has been reduced by 27 per cent., the RAF by 42 per cent. and the Royal Navy by 30 per cent., so that, at the beginning of the new millennium, our total armed forces will consist of about 210,000 men and women. The Army is now 4,000 under strength, and only seven of the 54 regiments and corps are up to strength.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who is here now, made a good speech yesterday. The Select Committee report says that soldiers are borrowed from other units, leaving them
depleted and less able to carry out their full training schedule.
On the RAF, the report says:
We conclude that at the present time the RAF is just about meeting its commitments while going through a period of considerable change.
Today, the United States marine corps has more men than the British Army, more aircraft carriers than the Royal Navy and more aircraft than the RAF. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred to a number of interesting matters regarding the Navy. We are told by the Government that there are 35 frigates and destroyers, but that only 27 of them are operational. That figure compares with 69 in 1985.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South also mentioned the Merchant Navy. Some 92 per cent. of trade to this country comes by sea. While our merchant fleet has gone into sharp decline, the ships that move our troops and equipment to Bosnia and elsewhere have come from Germany, Poland, Malta and Ukraine.
The Minister knows that a ship used in Operation Purple Star—an operation that he applauded, as we all did, some months ago—from Ukraine was impounded by

American customs because it was unsafe. I have nothing against Ukrainians, but we must talk about their ships. Very often the Government are obsessed with price and do not consider reliability and quality. That is a theme to which I shall return.
Is it any wonder that the morale of our forces has been affected? In Bosnia—where we all applaud the work of our men and women—our troops have had their overseas allowances cut, while all other nations have offered bonuses and special compensation. For example, a British private soldier based in Germany who goes to former Yugoslavia loses £1,239 a year, while a German soldier gains £21,470 a year, tax-free.
There is a need for high motivation among members of our armed forces. They are men and women who have to put their lives on the line, and are not just civilians in uniform. When talking about the defence industry yesterday, the Secretary of State said that no employer offers jobs for life. But no other job involves sacrificing one's life for one's country. My fear is that the perception referred to by the Under-Secretary in another place—that the armed forces is an "industry in decline" with redundancies and uncertainty—has affected recruitment.
The hon. Member for Gosport referred to recruitment problems. In 1995–96, only 11,000 men and women were recruited to the Army, when 15,000 were required. The problem was that the Ministry of Defence pruned the intake of school leavers far too severely. There is no point in having a raft of sergeant-majors with no one to command, and that is what happened.
What on earth happened to the Bett report? The hon. Member for Canterbury and others have referred to the report, which was much trumpeted, cost a lot of money and made 150 recommendations. The Government accepted one that referred to four or five senior ranks. However, the Secretary of State—who had told the House that he and his Ministers would properly consider the report before the recess—said in a written answer on 24 July that more work was required on the detailed options, and added:
It is likely that those will be set out in a report later this year which would provide the basis for an information exercise within the forces".—[Official Report, 24 July 1996: Vol. 282, c. 426.]
Well, that is the end of that. The Bett report has been shelved—or, in the words of the hon. Member for Canterbury, "buried". There is not much difference, but what a waste of time and money over all these years.
I and my party believe that the Government have gone over the top in chapter six of the defence estimates document, which looks like a business manual. It talks about business plans, glossy charters and the bottom line—all that stuff. There is nothing wrong with being businesslike, and everyone agrees that there is always room for more efficiency and cost-effectiveness. But our armed forces are not private companies. They are not businesses. The Falklands war was not a business venture. Saddam Hussein was not a business competitor—he was an evil and determined enemy. That is what our forces are about—fighting wars and defending this country.
The contractorisation that goes with all this is most obvious in the Royal Air Force. We have witnessed the disaster of RAF St. Athan. We do not know how much money was wasted there—tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of pounds. The Government are not prepared to tell us what went wrong. This afternoon, the Minister


of State for Defence Procurement said that he was in favour of "competitive rigour". I wish that he would be more rigorous about finding out about what happened at RAF St. Athan, and would tell the House how much it has cost the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), as always, raised the subject of the future of RAF Sealand in north Wales, where 1,300 aircraft technicians and 300 service personnel find their jobs are at risk because of the Government's doctrinaire insistence on market testing, even though RAF Sealand has consistently proved to be highly efficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) referred to the royal dockyards. I was in Devonport recently, and in Rosyth some months ago. Without question, the people who work in those dockyards want a period of stability, but have not been granted one. There has been delay after delay, postponed announcement after postponed announcement. I hope that tonight the Minister of State will be able to put our minds at rest in that respect.
This debate is essentially about the defence estimates, but it is not long until the Budget. We are told that the Treasury may intend to cut £400 million from the defence budget. That would certainly be in line with the indiscriminate cuts of recent years—and with the recent scandal of the sale of the married quarters.
The hon. Member for Canterbury said that service families were rightly worried about increases in their rents, and about their security of tenure. In Colchester alone, there is a 50 per cent. turnover in the married quarters; roughly 10 families a day move. We understand that the Ministry is giving no guarantees to service families about where they will live after the developers take over.
During the Lords debate on these estimates, one peer said:
A deal which nets the Treasury some £1.5 billion and returns to the military only £l00 million to £200 million is not necessarily very attractive. Apart from that, I believe that the decision may be fundamentally flawed in purely commercial, not military, terms."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 12 July 1996; Vol.574, c.569.]
That was said by a peer who voted for the Government. The truth, of course, came in the answer to the debate by the Under-Secretary, when he said:
It would be idle to pretend that such a sum as we expect to raise would not be significant to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as he shapes his Budget plans."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1996; Vol.574, c.594.]
There we have it. The whole episode of the sale of the married quarters was not about improving the lot of our armed forces or their dependants; it was about getting more money for the Budget before a general election.
The Government deny that defence decisions are Treasury led. In last year's statement on the defence estimates they talked about spending stability, yet between 1995 and 1998 nearly £700 million will be cut from the defence budget. In 1995–96, there has been, we are told, a £200 million underspend, which the Government described to the Select Committee as deferred payment for equipment and supplies. We know what that means: the Labour Government will have to pay next year. That, among other reasons, is why the Select Committee refused to recommend these estimates to the House of Commons. We entirely go along with the Select Committee in that.
Why on earth should we perpetuate the myth that the Conservatives are to be trusted with our nation's defences? They have reduced our forces to an all-time low. They have failed to match resources to commitments. They have wasted millions of pounds by their incompetence and bungling. They have betrayed service families in the married quarters affair, and yesterday they admitted that the House had been misled over the scandal of Gulf war syndrome.
Our armed forces have nothing to thank this Government for. The sooner the Government go, the better it will be—not just for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, but for the whole country.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): It is my great privilege to close this important annual debate on the defence White Paper. Over the past two days, we have heard some perceptive and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I shall attempt to cover some of the points raised.
Luckily, I do not have to pass judgment on the speech by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) last night, whose performance, as always, was so reminiscent, to those of us who love small, cuddly animals, of Basil Brush on amphetamines. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made, as he always does, a good and interesting speech, although most Conservative Members will have found it impossible to agree with almost any part of it; nevertheless, he had plainly gone to much trouble to present his case. I shall, of course, write to those hon. Members who raised questions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will deal by correspondence with those questions that involved defence procurement, and any points that I miss tonight will be dealt with later.
The use of organophosphate pesticides in the Gulf has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who served in the Gulf and made an effective and well-informed speech, and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton).
It has become clear, as the House now knows, that organophosphate insecticides were used more widely in the Gulf than we had been led to believe. I regret that the information given to the Defence Select Committee and to other hon. Members in the past few years has proved to be incorrect. The answers, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear last night, were given by Ministers in good faith, based on advice at the time. However, I fully accept that my Department should have known the correct position earlier, and I wish to stress to the House the great importance that I personally have always attached to the resolution of that complicated and difficult question and our determination to get to the bottom of it.
Our first concern is and must be the health and well-being of our service personnel who served in the Gulf. The use of OP pesticides may be a pointer to why some Gulf veterans are ill. We have already set about re-examining the medical records of all those who have attended the medical assessment process. The hon.


Member for Barrow and Furness mentioned the case of a specific soldier. I do not recall that case individually, but if the soldier has been through the medical assessment process and feels that he is still not being properly cared for, the hon. Gentleman must let me have the details at once.
I reiterate that we are determined to get to the bottom of the matter. We have commissioned a comprehensive investigation into the use of OP insecticides during the Gulf war and it will look urgently, and in the greatest detail, at the exact circumstances in which OP pesticides were used and the extent of their use. I shall report further to the House when that work is complete.
We continue to retain an open mind on the possibility of existence or otherwise of a specific Gulf war syndrome. It is clear that some veterans are ill, although I am encouraged by the story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby of his former comrade who was so ill and has been so well looked after. That is the experience of all those who have been through the service medical programme. We are anxious to find out whether the health of any of our Gulf war veterans has been affected by their service in the Gulf and the use of OP pesticides may be a factor that has affected a few veterans.
The House will be aware that we have, throughout our work on those health issues, been guided by the best medical advice available in the land. Hon. Members will recall that we asked the Royal College of Physicians to endorse the methodology of the medical assessment programme in July 1995. It approved our programme of work, but it recommended that we seek the advice of the Medical Research Council on a further detailed programme of research. The MRC has been given the latest information so that it can factor that in as it decides on a further programme of research into Gulf health issues. It has said that it will take the findings fully into account and that it remains on course to make its final recommendations to us on a programme of research to be announced next month.
The House will also wish to be reassured that we are in close touch with the United States authorities. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to his opposite number in the United States—US forces made wide use of pesticides, including organophosphates, during the Gulf war—about their programme of research into Gulf health issues. I assure the House that we shall take full account of any research that they have done on OP pesticides.
Let me make it clear that the Government are fully and wholly committed, as we must be, to the health of our service men and women. We fully understand the concerns and anxieties of those who are ill and their families, and we are determined to get to the root of this difficult and extremely complex question. The information on the use of OP pesticides is a new factor and may be a pointer. But I give you my personal assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we shall find out whatever there is to discover.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reported to the House on IFOR's achievements and the prospects for a lasting peace in the wake of the election. The standard of contributions to our debate, including those from hon. Members who visited Bosnia with the

Defence Select Committee earlier this year, has demonstrated the concern that the House feels for the future of that troubled land and the pride that we all share in the contribution that has been made by the British forces. I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and many others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has been an immensely assiduous Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. He has been to Bosnia on many occasions with his Committee and has returned each time with a high opinion of the work and efforts of our troops.
In July, I was delighted to have an opportunity to return to Bosnia to visit the UK units serving with IFOR. Like everyone else who has been there, I was truly impressed by the exceptional work that they have done. I was also impressed by the civilians involved in the outstandingly successful aid programme, which deserves great credit. I visited troops throughout the British-led multinational Division South-West, and it was clear that our people's firm, no-nonsense and thoroughly professional approach has gained the respect of all the parties and ensured their broad compliance with the terms of the peace agreement. From the busy divisional headquarters in Banja Luka to the small and sometimes extremely exposed detachments in isolated areas manned by young officers and very few men, all our people are making a remarkable contribution to the great success of IFOR's mission and all that it means for the future of NATO and events to come.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the importance of projects being undertaken in conjunction with the Overseas Development Agency. That work has been instrumental in sustaining and nurturing the peace, and has been a feature of the UK's contribution since the earliest days of UNPROFOR. Working with local people, British engineers and ODA staff are whole-heartedly helping them to rebuild their lives and communities. There has been wonderful co-operation between the Army and the ODA and much good has come of it. In that respect we have learnt many lessons for the future, which we shall apply to future operations. It is a pity that people outside do not realise the full extent of Britain's contribution to the aid programme and the remarkable way in which the ODA and the military have worked together.
I have time, alas, to dwell on but one small example among many. I visited a tiny hamlet called Jezero, in an area totally and utterly devastated during the conflict. A tiny health clinic there has been completely rebuilt by British engineers and the ODA. The clinic's one doctor and two nurses have been brought back and have been providing medical services to the 500 people who have now crept back into the area. That reconstruction effort, of which the clinic is but one tiny piece, encourages still more people to return to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and broken homes. The House should be aware also of the commitment that Baroness Chalker has made to the work in Bosnia, for which she deserves great credit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), in an extremely interesting and thoughtful speech-about 85 per cent. of which I agreed with whole—heartedly, which is about 60 per cent. more than usual—and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said that it was too early to say what international effort would be required after the end of the IFOR mandate in


December. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, it would be premature to take decisions today about a possible follow-on force to IFOR. However, it is clear that, if a continuing military presence were required in 1997, we would expect it to be NATO-led and that the United Kingdom would play its part alongside its allies. The House will be aware that contingency planning has been set in hand by NATO's military authorities and that this country is playing a full role. That will allow us to make properly informed decisions when the time comes.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will recall that, in confirming that the United Kingdom would participate in such a follow-on force, his right hon. Friend added the rider that he thought that it was important for the United States to be part of such a force. Will the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the United States should contribute to that follow-on force in the form of forces on the ground rather than in any other way?

Mr. Soames: Yes, and every other member of NATO expects that to be the case.
Before I say anything about Northern Ireland—I lump together the comments of all hon. Members on that subject—I offer my deepest sympathy to Warrant Officer Bradwell's grieving family and to the other victims of the IRA's despicable attack on Thiepval barracks last week. Artificer Sergeant Major Bradwell was a first-class and highly skilled non-commissioned officer, in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. He was simply doing his duty and his murder serves as a grim and tragic reminder of the risks faced by our service personnel every day.
I have been lucky enough to visit Northern Ireland many times as Minister of State. It is indeed the front line of the British armed forces' fight against a vicious and brutal terrorism. I never fail to be truly impressed by our soldiers' calm determination and steadiness—qualities that they have displayed in Northern Ireland for more than 27 years with great, and often heroic, distinction. I know that the House has particular admiration for the remarkable men of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, whose unique commitment deserves the nation's unqualified respect.
Those men will not be daunted by last week's bombings; nor will anyone else serving in Northern Ireland, or anyone in Britain. It will stiffen their absolute resolve to combat terrorism in the Province until it ceases to be a blight on the lives of the people who live there and who want peace very much. The IRA is making yet another grotesque miscalculation if it believes that those wicked acts of violence will bend the will of a Conservative Government.
In our debate over the past two days, much has been said about the way in which our defence and security policies have a global outlook. However, we sometimes pay less attention to what that means in practice for our service men and women. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) enjoyed his time on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have enjoyed it and have seen at first hand what the massive range of

deployments means for our armed forces. Rather than the crash and thunder that issue from the Dispatch Box in a set-piece debate such as this, we can learn about the ordinary, everyday lives of service men and women as they go throughout the world.
All around the world—not just in Bosnia and the middle east or the places that we hear about every day—Britain's armed forces are engaged in a range of operational and training deployments. I think it is important to highlight the extraordinary scope of our commitments and responsibilities and the remarkable way in which they are carried out. Tonight, 51 of the Queen's ships, together with six Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, are deployed to every corner of the globe, from the south Atlantic to Scandinavia, and from the Caribbean to Hong Kong.
HMS Edinburgh, a type 42 destroyer, with RFA Bayleaf in support, is in the Gulf on the Armilla patrol. After 17 years of providing reassurance to British shipping and playing a unique role in enhancing the security of our many friends in the Gulf, the Armilla patrol remains vital to the preservation of British interests in an area where we continue to maintain extremely important commercial, political and military relationships. No doubt all that would be reviewed in the Labour party's defence review, should it ever win a general election.
The type 42 destroyer HMS Exeter is in the south China sea, an area whose importance my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted yesterday. HMS Lancaster, a type 23 frigate, is patrolling the Falkland Islands. That is a potent symbol of our firm commitment to our dependencies in the south Atlantic. Her sister ship. HMS Argyll, is in the Caribbean, where among other things she plays a vital role in the international fight against drug trafficking in the region. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston stressed the vital role of the West Indian guard ship in preventing drug smuggling and how much we wish that a wider public knew of the success of these missions.
HMS Nottingham, a type 42 destroyer, is assigned to NATO's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean, and HMS Invincible is also in the Mediterranean, having recently participated in a major regional NATO exercise designed to improve interoperability and co-operation on land, sea and in the air.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Resource is at Split, where she has played a crucial role in support of our forces in Bosnia. I had the chance to visit the headquarters of the RFA in July, and I pay a warm and handsome tribute to the officers and crews of the RFA. Without them, the Royal Navy could not function.
In June, I visited the Royal Marine Commando training centre at Lympstone. I wish that the entire House could see the Royal Marines' fantastically high standards, both physically and in terms of their exceptional military capability, and also their superb esprit de corps. Today, elements of the Marines are conducting field-firing training in Cyprus, boat and beach training in the Netherlands and other exercises in Brunei and the United States. A fleet diving unit is taking part in a NATO mine warfare exercise in Turkey, and 40 Commando is luckily taking leave after an excellent tour in Northern Ireland.
Like many other Members, I have had opportunities to visit our submariners at Faslane. I wish to pay my tribute to the dedicated men who serve in both our hunter killer


and Trident boats, and before them on the Polaris vessels which served us so well for 30 years. We place on them and their families the most strenuous demands and they respond with demonstrable spirit and fortitude.
As the House will be fully aware, the Army's operational commitments are not limited to Bosnia and Northern Ireland. In Hong Kong, the resident Gurkha battalion will remain until next month, when it will move to the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he need have no anxiety about the Gurkhas. They are a valued and important part of our defence capability.
The Army continues to provide infantry and Royal Engineer forces in the Falklands, and closer to home we maintain a garrison of 3,000 troops in Cyprus to maintain the security and integrity of the sovereign base areas.
Tonight, elements of the Army are on exercise in Germany, Canada, Kenya, Jordan and Australia, and they have recently completed a major exercise in Poland. About 250 officers and soldiers serve in training teams assisting the armed forces of our friends.
As the House knows, the Royal Air Force continues to do admirable work in Bosnia, where six Harrier GR7 aircraft based in Gioia, together with a tanker, provide recce support for IFOR. The RAF also provides six Chinook helicopters, which have supported the ground forces. The support helicopter force has done a fantastic job in Bosnia and elsewhere, and I am delighted to mark it out tonight for its admirable work.
In the Gulf, we have six Tornado GRIs, supported by a tanker, which fly as the UK contribution to the southern no-fly zone, and over northern Iraq six Tornados are operating out of Incirli. Fast jets, AWACS—the airborne warning and communication system—support helicopters, transport and maritime aircraft are all involved tonight on training exercises both at home and overseas.
Everywhere I have been, I have been greatly impressed with the high personal standards of RAF personnel. The whole House should know that, this year, they have won a number of extremely important awards that confirm their skill and pre-eminence among all other air crew in the world. The House will particularly wish to congratulate the crew from 72 Squadron, to whom the Princess Royal presented last week the Edward and Maisie Lewis award for the most notable air sea rescue of the year, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances off the Falkland Islands.
There is no doubt that present demands made upon the three services are very heavy. My hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Canterbury and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have all made that clear. Clearly, they are working to a high level of tasking, and that places real pressures on both men and equipment. I find morale, nevertheless, to be extremely good, but I am under no illusions, nor is anyone here, as to the pressures on service personnel and their families.
I take this opportunity to salute the service wives and their families, and take this chance to thank them for their tolerance and forbearance over the past 12 months. Each of the services is conscious of its obligations for the welfare of its dependants, and I pay tribute to the efforts of those service welfare organizations—from the Soldiers,

Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, to the Navy, Army, Air Force Institute to the Royal British Legion—who do so much to support those engaged in the defence of the realm.
I also endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport about the great importance of the medical services. I am pleased that he is pleased about HMS Dolphin, and we shall continue to watch that situation carefully.
I would also like to thank all the civilian staff of the MOD, wherever they may be, who do so much to support military operations. Without them, the armed forces simply could not function. We greatly value and cherish our civilian work force, who have had to cope with formidable change. We are lucky indeed to have such loyal support from our civil servants, at all levels.
Many of the activities undertaken by our armed forces are connected with our allies and partners—as displayed in Bosnia, where we continue to play a central role in our development of closer relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe, where we have the closest possible and burgeoning relationships. We regard these as extremely important. A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and others, mentioned the importance of the enlargement of NATO.
The opportunity to exercise our forces in countries we used to regard as adversaries is one of the most tangible reminders of just how far we have come in such a short time. I visited the 7th Armoured Brigade on exercise in Poland recently and had an opportunity to see them exercising on testing and unfamiliar terrain with their Polish colleagues. That is surely a remarkably testimony—seven years after the fall of the Berlin wall and more than 57 years since the German invasion of Poland—of the strategic changes that the world has seen.
There are numerous poignant demonstrations of the depth of the defence relations that we have established in the region. A British Army brigadier is serving as special adviser to the Czech Chief of the General Staff. A British colonel is on attachment to the Latvian army as Deputy Chief of the General Staff. Both attachments have provided a permanent and readily available source of advice to their hosts.
The reserve forces continue to make a vital contribution to our defence capabilities. Reservists have been involved in operations in the former Yugoslavia from the very first deployments. All together some 1,700 reservists, the majority from the Territorial Army, have been called out. All have been volunteers and they have performed very well.
A smaller, but no less important, contribution is provided by members of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who are serving in Turkey in support of the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. We are committed to using our reserves more widely and more flexibly. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 will enable us to do just that. The Act, which has been widely welcomed, updates the law on reserves and provides for their more flexible use, introducing important new safeguards for employers and reservists. This is a very important and useful step forward, and work is now under way to develop the necessary secondary legislation to enable the Act's new powers to operate.
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell, North for his co-operation and that of his hon. Friends in the Committee in which that Bill was seen through the House of Commons. It was, I agree, an admirable and model way of doing the business.

Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermiline, West): rose—

Mr. Soames: No, I must carry on.
The House will also wish to recognise the wonderful work of the cadet forces. As well as giving many young people their first experience of the armed forces and the service way of life, they play an important wider role in our national life, helping in the development of qualities such as good citizenship, self-reliance and self-confidence. I am grateful to those thousands of adult volunteers and parents who give selflessly of their time to make cadet units an immense success. They are greatly valued.
A number of hon. Members have referred to manning, recruitment and morale. Some hon. Members have rightly expressed concern about levels of recruitment to the armed forces. I am glad to say that recruitment is picking up well. We are not complacent about it, but we are determined to carry on and to ensure that we maintain the good flow of recruits.

Ms Squire: rose—

Mr. Soames: I will not give way.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his opening remarks yesterday, said that the Bett review contained many complex issues and interrelationships which need to be carefully considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has also spoken of that matter.
I know that the House will agree that those are vital questions which need the most careful and detailed consideration. It is crucial that we take the appropriate time to get them right. More work is required and we will take all the time we need to ensure that we get the right answers. We shall not be rushed into making decisions and the exercise will take some months yet.
While the Labour party postures and poses, with its wholly unbelievable and unreal so-called defence policy, it mocks the ethos of the armed forces with its left-wing obsessions for all the ghastly politically correct nostrums that dominate Labour Members' lives. The Labour party will never be able to understand that the armed forces have a need to be different.
Socialists should remember in their prattling and wittering that, for the young service man and woman of today, the fundamental character of war will remain unchanged. Those highly trained men and women will have to take part in a terrifying contest of wills for which they will need to be highly trained and in which they will have to cope with extreme danger, in rapidly changing circumstances, amid conditions of chaos and uncertainty. Their skills and the quality of their leadership, weapons and equipment will be severely tested.
Such operations are sustainable only by men highly motivated by tremendous pride in their regiment, their corps, their service and their traditions. My hon. Friends and I do not believe that the Labour party has the first idea

what that means. It believes those things to be irrelevant abstractions, and it is clear that they neither appreciate nor understand us.
What the House heard last night from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was a fraud and a sham. A Labour defence policy consists of a succession of formulae designed to enable people who profoundly disagree to persuade themselves that they are in total agreement. It will not wash and the country will not buy it, because ordinary people know, as do Conservative Members, that Labour, old or new, simply does not care about defence. To Labour, defence simply does not matter. It is not a priority. But all the qualities that mark out the services as being so admirable and formidable are wholly inimical and entirely contrary to socialists' left-wing beliefs. They are entirely alien concepts to socialist Labour, old or new.
We on the Conservative Benches cannot and will not ever forget the spineless craven folly of the same people on the Opposition Benches and their reckless and grotesque flirtation with CND and other fellow travellers in the 1980s. When it mattered, Labour bottled out and chucked in the sponge. If Labour had been in power in the 80s there would have been no cruise missiles and no Trident. There might have been serious consequences to our national security. Labour proved then once and for all that it can never be trusted with defence.
This pathetic and wholly implausible attempt by Labour spokesmen to suggest that there can be consensus between us on major defence issues is not sustainable because of their record. I recommend that my hon. Friends remember that 18 of the 24 present members of the shadow Cabinet were formerly CND members. They are not to be trusted on defence. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendment and to vote for the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 290.

Division No. 214



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joseph
Campbell-Savours, D N


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Church, Ms Judith


Beith, A J
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ms Ann


Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blunkett, David
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith
Corbyn, Jeremy






Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Rt Hon Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McFall, John


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McNamara, Kevin


Fisher, Mark
MacShane, Denis


Flynn, Paul
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Foulkes, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fraser, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Hanson, David
Oakes, Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, Bill


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pearson, Ian


Hoey, Miss Kate
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr Kim
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Janner, Greville
Rogers, Allan


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Rooney, Terry





Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dennis


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tyler, Paul


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Vaz, Keith


Short, Ms Clare
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N


Snape, Peter
Watson, Mike


Soley, Clive
Welsh, Andrew


Spearing, Nigel
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stott Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Dr Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Thurnham, Peter





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bates, Michael
Curry, Rt Hon David


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, John
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord


Booth, Hartley
James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Durant Sir Anthony


Brandreth, Gyles
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butcher, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)






Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Knox, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Kynoch, George


French, Douglas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fry, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Gale, Roger
Legg, Barry


Gallie, Phil
Leigh, Edward


Gardiner, Sir George
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Gill, Christopher
Lidington, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Lilley, Peter


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lord, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Luff, Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
McCrea, Rev William


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
MacKay, Andrew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Madel, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hampson, Dr Keith
Malone, Gerald


Hannam, Sir John
Mans, Keith


Hargreaves, Andrew
Marland, Paul


Harris, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Marshall, Sr Michael (Arundel)


Hawkins, Nick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hawksley, Warren
Mates, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Merchant, Piers


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Mills, Iain


Hendry, Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Moate, Sir Roger


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Horam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Norris, Steve


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ottaway, Richard


Jack, Michael
Page, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Paice, James


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Pickles, Eric


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Key, Robert
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Knapman, Roger
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Richards, Rod


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm





Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thomason, Roy


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Sir Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Ward, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Speed, Sir Keith
Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Sr Michael (S Worcs)
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spring, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sweeney, Walter



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996 contained in Cm.3223.

BUISNESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Secretary Sir George Young relating to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Asylum (Designated Countries)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the order is passed, it will have a great effect on many hon. Members' advice services, so I shall attempt to raise it with my usual mix of charity and cynicism. The order was announced as business at 4 pm yesterday, but I understand that it was not placed in the Vote Office until 4.30. We have therefore had only a very limited time in which to consider its merits and to hear observations from the many organisations that will be affected by it.
If such a limited time is in order, I am sure that the speed at which the order is to be dealt with will give rise to some concern. If it is in order, is there any way in which the business can be postponed for further consultation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that it is perfectly in order and that his point of order was a matter of argument.

Miss Widdecombe: I cannot resist commenting on what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) attempted to pass as a point of order. The seven countries now listed were in fact proposed by the Secretary of State as long ago as December 1995, on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The hon. Gentleman has therefore had plenty of time to work out what he wishes to say.
The order designates seven countries as safe countries of destination under schedule 2(5) to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The order also designates four countries as safe third countries under section 2 of the 1996 Act.
The effect of designating a country as a safe country of destination is that refused applications will normally attract the accelerated appeal procedure that already operates in certain other types of case. The designation of safe third countries has the effect of enabling an applicant for asylum who can be returned to a third country to be removed there without waiting for any appeal against the decision to consider his claim substantively.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: It is somewhat early in my speech, but I will give way.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way somewhat early. I should like her to deal with something in the order. Will she tell us whether the words in paragraph 2 of the order,
in general no serious risk of persecution",

are to be taken to mean that, for some people, the Government accept that there is a risk of persecution? If not, what other meaning are we to ascribe to the introduction of the words "in general"?

Miss Widdecombe: The words "in general" mean exactly that: in general. We have repeatedly made the point that, even in those countries in which there is general safety, some people will have a well-founded fear of persecution. That is exactly why, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, a small number of people qualify either for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain even in those countries that produce a very high percentage of rejections every year. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, but had he waited he would have heard me repeat it.
In relation to both types of designation, the overall purpose is to enable asylum applications to be dealt with more speedily and effectively, without departing in any way from the principle that each case is to be considered on its individual merits and without detriment to the position of any genuine refugee.
The seven countries designated as safe countries of destination are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. Those are the same seven countries which, during Parliament's consideration of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Government stated were being considered as candidates for designation. We believe that each of those countries has functioning institutions, stability and pluralism in sufficient measure to support an assessment that the general level of risk to people living in the country is sufficiently low to warrant designation.
We have made available—I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will wish to read it—an explanatory note on the designation of the seven countries, in addition to background country assessments setting out the Government's view of the general conditions in each of them.
We have also made clear the three main criteria that must be met for us to consider designation appropriate. The first criterion is that there is, in general, no serious risk of persecution in that country or territory. The second criterion is that the number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom from its nationals is significant. The third is that a very high percentage of applications are refused on examination.

Mr. Max Madden: The Minister has mentioned the home country assessment. Will she say how long those documents have been in preparation? Will she confirm or deny that reputable human rights organisations based in this country have been consulted about the views on human rights—particularly in India and Pakistan—expressed in those documents?

Miss Widdecombe: As I said in answer to an earlier intervention, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the seven countries as long ago as December 1995. Obviously, it was open to people to make representations to us once those countries were mentioned. Some people did so, and I met a group about the issue of safety in Pakistan.
We have taken into account not only detailed information and deliberation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but a range of information from


other bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International. The reports have had various times for preparation, according to which of the seven countries they dealt with, but they have been extremely detailed. They have not—if this is the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—been rushed at the last minute. Full consideration has been given to the detail in those reports. If, when he has read them—he may already have done so as I know that he is very quick—the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me any particular issues relating to statements that we have made on those assessments, I shall be delighted to meet him or to engage in correspondence with him on those points.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My hon. Friend will be aware that, in some of the countries that have been designated, the way in which the ruling party most commonly asserts a slight shift in its religious stance is to take it out on the Christian minority. Will she give an assurance that her Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be properly aware of the extraordinary vulnerability of Christians in Muslim countries which may suddenly wish to send a signal about being more or less fundamentalist, and do so by victimising Christian minorities?

Miss Widdecombe: I can of course give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will make sure that we are aware of any minority who are suffering in any way. But when people apply to this country for asylum, as my hon. Friend well knows, we have to assess each individual case on its merits. We do not create classes of persons who are automatically entitled to asylum. Each case will have to be established on its merits.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is she aware of the recent heightened tension in Cyprus, where at the weekend a Greek Cypriot was tragically shot by Turkish forces? Has she taken that into account when designating Cyprus as a safe country?

Miss Widdecombe: I repeat yet again that every individual case is considered on its merits. The fact that a country has been designated does not mean that people who claim that they are victims of circumstances—whether circumstances that were known to us when we designated the country concerned or any subsequent circumstances—will not still have the full right to have their cases individually and thoroughly considered. If we did any less, we would be in breach of our obligations under the Geneva convention.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way once more only.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the constitution of Pakistan contains provisions which stigmatise Ahmadis and condemn them to long periods of imprisonment simply for claiming that they are Muslims, and that laws against Christians are enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan? How can one say that a country is generally

safe when the constitution itself contains provisions of that nature, which no party in Pakistan has the guts to repeal?

Miss Widdecombe: We would consider whether an Ahmadi in that situation faced persecution, whether he could go to a centre such as Rabwah where he would he safe, or whether he could go elsewhere in the country where he would be safe. If he could not, we would consider the circumstances that constituted a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution. Each individual who applies to us, on whatever basis, will have such questions asked.
I want now to make progress, because I am getting a series of questions about the individual Governments of the countries concerned. They are all answered by one point which I cannot stress enough—that every individual case will be fully considered. The creation of a designated list is not the creation of a blanket ban, or even the creation of a presumption of refusal: it is straightforwardly an accelerated procedure. Designation is not a new concept unique to the—

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I normally give way to Opposition Front-Bench Members, but I did say that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) was the last Member to whom I would give way.

Mr. Straw: I should be very grateful.

Miss Widdecombe: All right, but then the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister reflect on the statement that she has just made? She said that the white list did not lead to a rebuttable presumption that an application was unfounded. But the background paper published by her own Department said exactly the opposite.

Miss Widdecombe: What I said—as the hon. Member for Blackburn will see if he consults Hansard—is that there would be "no presumption of refusal". If somebody puts in an application, it will be considered on its merits. We shall not start with the idea that we are turning down an application, regardless of its merits. That is what I said, and if Opposition Members listen to the debate, they will learn what the designated list is all about. It is not a new concept and it is not unique to the United Kingdom. Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and Finland already operate similar arrangements.
We have stressed on many occasions the safeguards built into the designation principle. There will be no blanket ban on claims from designated countries. Each claim will be considered on its merits, and an applicant will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator. Last year, at least 97 per cent. of claims from nationals of the seven countries were refused—more than 6,750 applications. Those claims that are refused will attract the accelerated appeal procedure. Moreover, if the adjudicator agrees that the application is unfounded, that will be the end of the matter. There will be no further avenue of appeal to the immigration tribunal.
In short, designation will allow the asylum process to deal quickly with the large number of unfounded applications that we currently receive from countries which are, in general, safe, while recognising the small number of applicants from such countries who may have genuine claims.
In determining which countries should be designated, we are required to make a judgment about whether the general level of risk to people living in a country is sufficiently low to warrant designation. The words
in general no serious risk of persecution
in the fifth paragraph of schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 make that quite clear. Designation does not mean that a country should be universally "safe" or that its institutions should function in every respect to western standards. The wording of the Act clearly rules out the designation of any country where there is a significant level of persecution, even if it is targeted only at minorities.

Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I wish to make some progress.
The list of countries that we have proposed for designation excludes a number of countries which generate large numbers of unfounded asylum claims but in which there are nevertheless sufficient concerns about human rights that the requirement of the Act is not met. An obvious example would be Nigeria.
I now refer to the second part of the order and the designation of safe third countries. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 provided that, in cases where the safe third country concerned is a member state of the European Union, applicants may exercise their right of appeal only after they have left the UK. Hon. Members may recall that we proposed this change because we were finding that delays caused by the appeals process were making it difficult to effect removals in many cases where it was clear that the third country was perfectly safe for the applicant.
We stated during parliamentary discussions on the Act that we were considering using the power provided in section 2(3) of the 1996 Act to extend this procedure to certain selected non-EU states. The United States, Canada and Switzerland were mentioned in the debate. To these, the asylum order adds Norway. Taken together, those states constitute the majority of present non-EU third country cases. I do not intend to describe in any detail why we consider each of the countries to be suitable for designation. They are all states with long-established and respected human rights records. A detailed description of the countries' asylum laws and procedures, together with an explanation of why we are satisfied that returned asylum seekers would be treated in accordance with the UN convention, is set out in the individual appraisals for each country that we have made available to Parliament.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: We oppose the order, and we shall vote against it. Anyone who was in any doubt about the merits of the order need only have listened to the disingenuous sophistry that we heard from the Minister of State a moment ago.
By international conventions, the United Kingdom is bound to consider each asylum application on its merits, but the so-called white list of designated countries will in practice prevent that from happening. Under this system, all applicants from countries on the list will be presumed to be bogus—without foundation—unless they can prove otherwise.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: The Minister disagrees, but she is damned out of her own mouth. She says that there is no presumption of refusal. In that case I ask her why the Home Office—she has endorsed the words time and again—said that the white list would set up a rebuttable presumption that asylum applications from designated countries were unfounded. If they are unfounded, they will be refused.
The truth is the reverse of what the Minister has said: there is a presumption of refusal. That is exactly what the House was told by the Home Office when the white list was introduced. If there is no presumption of refusal, what purpose is served by a white list? The Minister tried to weave her way through the contortions of her argument by implying that there would be no difference between the treatment of an applicant from a white list country and an applicant from a country that is not on the list. If so, I repeat: what purpose is served by the white list?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman were a genuine applicant wanting his asylum application considered, would he not be grateful for any measure that speeded up the processing of unfounded claims?

Mr. Straw: I would be grateful, whatever country I came from, if that were so, but the Government are not taking genuine steps to speed up the process and ensure that each application is considered on its merits. They are cobbling together an arrangement that suggests that people from the designated countries are at no general risk of persecution. Thereafter, those applicants will most certainly be treated as second-class applicants, and their applications stand to be refused unless they can rebut the presumption of refusal.

Mr. Michael Stephen: rose—

Mr. Straw: I want to quote the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley), who got it exactly right in a letter to The Times of July this year. We are all sorry that the hon. Member cannot be here tonight. Writing about this system, he said:
It is of course impossible to distinguish the genuine from the fraudulent until a case has been thoroughly examined".
The result, he added, is that the system will
affect the genuine refugee as well
as the bogus refugee. We oppose the principle behind the white list and, in government, we shall not operate it.
The white list's only purpose is to put applicants from the designated countries at a disadvantage. Its operation, in our judgment, conflicts with the spirit of our international obligations.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a rebuttable presumption. If the presumption is rebuttable,


surely that means that the applicant has an opportunity to rebut it. How, therefore, can the hon. Gentleman maintain that the applicant has no right to have his case heard on its merits?

Mr. Straw: It is always delightful to give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is always so badly informed. It was not I who maintained that there was a rebuttable presumption: it was the Government. It was a Home Office background paper published just over a year ago which said it. The hon. Gentleman should think about this and perhaps write a submission to the Secretary of State about it—

Mr. Stephen: Give way.

Mr. Straw: —before he stands up again and makes a fool of himself. The simple question for him concerns what purpose the white list serves if it is not to disadvantage certain applicants and to ensure that the merits of an application from a country on the white list will be less well considered than those of an application from elsewhere.
On Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Secretary of State said that one of the criteria that he would adopt in selecting countries for designation was that, in general, there was no serious risk of persecution—but the countries selected are not those that generally feature at the top of any list of nations that are celebrated for their protection of human rights. Bulgaria, Ghana, Pakistan, Poland and Romania would not be at the top of any such list. It is no coincidence that the countries that celebrate and protect human rights are not on that list—generally, they do not generate any asylum seekers. Instead, almost without exception, each of the countries on the list has had a recent history of profound political unrest or of continuing instability in one area or with some minority group.

Ms Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that India is on that list, considering the human rights record in Indian-held Kashmir, where torture, rape and killings happen regularly?

Mr. Straw: It is strange that any country is on the list, but the choice of the countries that are on the list is especially strange, for reasons that I shall explain.
If we look down the list, we can see that the first criterion—the claim that, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution in a country—has been subordinated to the Home Secretary's second and third criteria, which are that the countries generate a significant number of asylum claims and that a high proportion prove to be unfounded. It is worse than that. Ministers have had to turn themselves into apologists for the poor human rights record of many of those countries to make them qualify for inclusion.
In the short time available, I wish to illustrate my point by reference to one of the countries on the list: Pakistan. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will make similar points about most of the other countries on the list. I have many constituents who come from Pakistan. I have visited the country and I follow its history and politics with great interest. Most of my constituents from Pakistan, whatever their political affiliations in that country, would regard the

country assessment published by the Home Office as a joke. It is a risible but revealing document, riddled with inconsistency and designed to justify the unjustifiable.
The document is supposed to provide immigration officers and caseworkers with a feel for the country and some assessment of how it operates and its politics, but it does not refer to the single most traumatic event in Pakistan's political history—the death of Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was executed by the military dictatorship of General Zia ul-Haq in 1979. There is not one reference to those events, and nothing about the dictatorship of General Zia—or about the dictator's death in mysterious circumstances in 1985. No sense is therefore given of the potent role that political violence has played, sadly, in Pakistan almost throughout its history.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Could the hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House what conceivable relevance those events have to the situation in Pakistan today?

Mr. Straw: That intervention merely shows the strength of my case that the document is a joke—and so are the comments of the Home Secretary. He is damned out of his own mouth. What relevance does the execution of Bhutto in 1979 have now?

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am answering the Home Secretary's question, if he will sit down.
What relevance does the dictatorship of Zia have for today's events? I will tell him. Zia executed Bhutto, Zia came to power and Zia passed Ordinance XX, which made it illegal for the Ahmadis to claim that they are Muslims. That has led to 2,400 Ahmadis facing trial for blasphemy under that law and 21 facing the prospect of death. That is the relevance, and I am astonished that the Home Secretary has omitted that information.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. His answer has strayed so far from my question that it shows his complete unfitness to stand at the Dispatch Box. The party of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is the present Government of Pakistan and the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is the present Prime Minister of Pakistan, so what conceivable relevance does the death of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, which happened all those years ago, have to present conditions in Pakistan?

Mr. Straw: It helps people to understand that Pakistan has a long and continuing history of serious political violence. The Secretary of State talks about the Bhutto family as though the violence that it has suffered happened 17 or 18 years ago. Is he not aware—the document says nothing about it—that Benazir Bhutto's brother was the subject of a political killing on 27 September? Are we conveniently to ignore that killing so that the Secretary of State can whitewash Pakistan's human rights record?
This document is about whitewashing the records of countries such as Pakistan to force them into the Government's designated list. Rarely have I seen a Secretary of State (so clearly) damned out of his own


mouth by his ignorance of the state of a country that he has designated. He asks what relevance the country's history has. The document goes all the way back to 1947; it is not as though it talks only about the past few years.
Although the people who wrote it clearly thought that history was of some importance, they decided to fillet the history. They say that Pakistan was set up in 1947 and is an
Islamic republic with a system of parliamentary democracy.
I happen to think that it is useful to know that that system of parliamentary democracy has had the occasional hiccup, with military dictatorships, the killing of Prime Ministers, and the political killing of the brother of the present Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, ordinances and laws passed by the dictatorship are still in force as a result of the present Government's refusal to change them, because, in my view, they are too cowardly to do so.
In properly functioning democracies, it is unusual for the Prime Minister's brother to be the subject of a political killing, as happened recently in Pakistan. The fact that that killing is not mentioned in this country assessment simply illustrates how quickly the assessments, even if they were accurate, can become out of date.
The country assessment on Pakistan blithely claims—my hon. Friends should weigh these words with care—that
as a democracy there is freedom of opinion and assembly
with, for example, a thriving newspaper industry, generally free to discuss public issues. But even the report's authors knew that they could not tax the incredulity of their readers too far, so they go on to admit, in respect of newspapers, that
the government retains the power of confiscation for a wide range of prohibitions"—
on newspapers—
which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The report goes on to say:
The government though does exercise a certain amount of pressure on the free press".
The British Government exercise a certain amount of pressure on the free press, so they will know all about that. But in Pakistan's case, it is not tea at the Prime Minister's residence or even the offer of the Pakistani equivalent of a knighthood to compliant editors, but
the withdrawal of government advertising revenue on which the papers depend
and therefore their temporary closure. That is the minor pressure that is placed on editors in Pakistan. If they step out of line, the "free press" is simply closed down. The document goes on to say:
Newspaper offices have also been raided by the security forces".
The document also reveals arguments that undermine much of the Government's approach to asylum issues. Throughout the debate earlier this year, we claimed that most asylum applications were related to the sense of fear felt by particular communities as a result of political instability. The Government simply countered that most applications were bogus and somehow arose in a random way or as a result of economic forces. The most oppressed group in Pakistan is, by general agreement, the Ahmadis.

It is no surprise—even this document admits—that there are now no applications from supporters of Mrs. Bhutto's Pakistan People's party and lots of applications from that oppressed group, the Ahmadis.
I have already spelt out to the House the fact that, although General Zia ul-Haq died in 1985, his dictatorial legacy lives on in the objectionable Ordinance XX, which prohibits Ahmadis from declaring that they are Muslims and carries serious penalties for those who do—some 2,400 Ahmadis are being processed under the ordinance. In addition, it provides for the death penalty for Ahmadis for blasphemy, and 21 are currently awaiting trial. That is the state of affairs in a country where the Minister says that there is no general fear of persecution. I believe that that is an utterly disgraceful statement, which takes no account of the real situation in Pakistan.
The country assessment sought to make light of the little local difficulties faced by the Ahmadis. It says that their rights
are safeguarded under the [Pakistan] constitution".
Conveniently, the assessment's overall conclusion is:
there is no evidence of government led persecution of minorities … where discrimination or harassment does occur, it emanates from the actions of individuals or groups at local level".
That conclusion is disputed by all human rights groups who know anything about the situation in Pakistan and we now know that it is also disputed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have a copy of a letter, which was sent to me recently, from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). Dated May 1996, it refers to the problems faced by the Ahmadis, and states:
The main problems faced by the Ahmadi community stem from a … Constitutional Amendment which designates Ahmadis as non-muslims and from the blasphemy laws which specifically make certain expressions of the Ahmadi faith illegal.
It continues:
Radical sectarian groups and individuals have taken encouragement from these laws, and have carried out attacks against Ahmadis. In some cases there are credible reports that the local authorities have given tacit support to these actions.
The letter confirms two things—first, that at local level it is not, as the Minister's country assessment suggests, unofficial groups or individuals who are harassing Ahmadis but the official local authorities. They are part of the Government and, in Pakistan, are usually under the thumb of the provincial governor who, in turn, is appointed by the President. In other words, those local authorities are part of the Government apparatus.
Secondly, the Foreign Office letter confirms that the fundamental cause of the abuse of Ahmadis is not the unofficial actions of a few groups or individuals, but the result of the Government's actions in sustaining the objectionable Ordinance XX. I am glad to learn that the Pakistan Government wish to change the law, but the simple fact is that it is on the statute book, it is in force and 2,400 Ahmadis are awaiting trial as a result of its objectionable nature.
During Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, I referred hon. Members to the experience of the United States in the matter of "white lists". In the 1980s, the United States faced a much more difficult situation regarding asylum than that which confronts this country today. It considered the idea of a


white list procedure, but it wisely discarded the proposal before it was brought into force. It thought that the process of deciding whether a country should go on or come off the white list would embroil, complicate and compromise the United States Government regarding that country's human rights record. It also believed that the standing of the United States could be damaged in the process and that many more court actions—the equivalent of our judicial review—could result.
The United States Government were right on every count and the British Government are wrong on every count. The white list, and the country assessments on which the list is based, are partial, defective and profoundly unfair. They will hit the genuine applicant as hard as the bogus applicant and they will damage the United Kingdom's reputation as a defender of human rights. We shall oppose the order in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to raise a procedural point. I hope that it will not delay the continuation of a highly charged and serious debate that concerns us all.
The order does not contain a compliance cost assessment. The Government say that every Bill that comes before the House should be scrutinised to assess the cost that will have to be met by private business. The Government wish to avoid putting any extra burden on private business.
The concept of assessment in every statutory instrument and every Act was not, understandably, a feature of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, except in the sections dealing with employment and the cost to industry in terms of establishing the status of new employees. That was because private business was affected.
I raise this technical point because, on 22 May 1996, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in a measured and thoughtful speech, said that cost compliance assessment would be considered to be extended to public costs as well as private costs. That meant that every Bill and every statutory instrument would contain a compliance cost assessment that took account of the additional burden on the public purse on the basis of whether more staff and administrative support would be required.
I expected to find in the order a compliance cost assessment of the additional burden on the public purse. It is not there. Will there be no cost to the public purse, or have the Government yet to decide whether to extend the compliance cost assessment to public costs as well as private costs?
Last year, Lady Blatch, the Minister of State in the other place, said that the number of asylum caseworkers had increased eightfold to nearly 800, and that the Government were investing an additional £37 million to provide for even more caseworkers and adjudicators. The order is silent about additional costs. I understand that there may be some, bearing it in mind that the number of decisions taken has increased from 21,000 in 1994 to 27,000 last year. The number of new claimants reached 44,000 last year.
The Government are committed to less bureaucracy, less officialdom and less red tape. It is not our fault that there are now more asylum seekers than ever before, but

why hide the cost of dealing with them? We cannot commit ourselves to compliance cost assessment, which is part of the Government's deregulationary initiative, only to ignore it in the first order to come before us after the summer recess.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall concentrate my remarks on Bulgaria, but first I shall make a few general remarks. When we debated the Asylum and Immigration Bill on Second Reading and in Committee—the issue was taken up earlier this evening—it was said that a list of countries would have no effect on individuals. It is one of the most ludicrous suggestions that I have ever heard. It has been admitted this evening, as it was by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, that a country's inclusion in the list will lead to the assumption that an individual's application is not well founded. It defies common sense to pretend that such a person's application will be treated in the same way as an application from a person whose country is not on the list. It is a nonsensical argument. No one outside the House could conceivably believe it.
I would have a little more respect for those who are advancing the argument if they were honest enough to say, "We are producing a list of countries from which we intend to reject applications." That is what the list is about. I would have more respect for those concerned if they were up front about their intentions. Instead they are engaging in the ludicrous pretence that people from all countries will be treated in the same way.
In any event, any applicant must prove that his or her fear of persecution is well founded.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is not my hon. Friend really saying what was said in "Alice in Wonderland" by the Queen of Hearts: Sentence first, trial later?

Mr. Gerrard: That sums it up. It is the guilty until proven innocent approach to the problem. The fact that few people from a particular country—for example, Bulgaria—are given asylum does not in any way justify treating applicants from that country differently. It is interesting to look at what has happened with Bulgaria over the past few years. One person was granted asylum in 1992; there were none in 1993, none in 1994, but five were given exceptional leave. There were none in 1995, but one was given exceptional leave.
The number of applications has been increasing. Why? Those figures do not seem to suggest that anybody could conceivably think that applying for asylum is a soft touch if a person comes from Bulgaria. They are almost all being refused, anyway. But the numbers are going up, and that seems to suggest that something must be happening in Bulgaria to provoke people to apply for asylum.
Anyone who has read the country report—even the Home Office country report—or any human rights organisations' papers on Bulgaria will know of the way in which Roma in particular but also other ethnic minority groups suffer. The Home Office country assessment talks about local inter-ethnic tensions; about widespread resentment of Roma; and about discrimination and violence against Roma, which continue to occur.
It does not, of course, mention the fact that Bulgaria is one of only five countries in the Council of Europe that refused to sign the framework convention on the protection of national minorities. It is not the strongest of frameworks, but Bulgaria refused to sign it, and said that it would be against its national interest.
Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty, that look at Bulgaria quote many examples: for example, in April 1993, an assembly of Macedonians was interrupted by the police and people were beaten. In 1994, the robbery of an inhabitant of a small town sparked retaliations against Roma in the area and 20 families' homes were ransacked and destroyed. There are many documented examples of discrimination against such minorities and many reports of police violence and brutality—again, particularly against ethnic minorities in Bulgaria. At the very least, that calls into question the ability of the authorities to provide protection.
Refugee status does not depend on persecution by the state. The United Nations convention makes it absolutely clear that where discriminatory or offensive acts are committed by the local populace they can be considered as persecution if they are tolerated by the authorities or if the authorities refuse to provide protection. That is precisely what happens to people of Romany origin in countries such as Bulgaria.
The Home Office country report goes to great lengths about what has happened to the legal system in Bulgaria, but again the United Nations says that the laws of the country of origin, but particularly the manner in which they are applied, will be relevant. The fact that there is a law that says that there should not be discrimination, but that it is not applied, should be taken into consideration.
I have absolutely no doubt that the white list will lead to discrimination and to injustice, that assumptions will be made about people without looking at their individual case properly. I return to the point with which I started. Nobody can possibly pretend that this system is fair, that it treats people from the white list the same as people who are not on it. What would be the point of a white list if that happened? It is a nonsensical argument. I would have more respect if people were more honest about what they were doing.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I am grateful for the opportunity, which was denied me by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in the course of his speech, to reply to his rude and, frankly, ignorant response to the point that I put to him. He dodged responding to the substantive issue by relying upon a debating point which, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, even he will see is a false point.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the order deprives an applicant of a hearing of his case on the merits. He accepted or maintained, I care not which, that the presumption raised by the order was a rebuttable one. If the presumption is rebuttable, the applicant will have an opportunity to rebut it. In other words—let me spell it out to the hon. Gentleman—an applicant will have an opportunity to put his case and have it heard on the merits. Therefore, how can the hon. Gentleman possibly argue that the order deprives an applicant of a hearing of his case on the merits?
If the applicant happens to be an Ahmadi from Pakistan, I have no doubt that he will say, "I am an Ahmadi from Pakistan," and I have no doubt that he will make the kind of arguments that we have heard this evening. Those arguments will be listened to. The case will be decided on its merits. That will probably also apply to anyone who says, "I am a Romany from Bulgaria." It is obvious that the order speeds up the process of dealing with asylum applicants, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3.
In the speeches of Opposition Ms—no doubt we shall be regaled by more of them in the course of the debate—the attitude seems to be that anyone who comes from a country whose standards are lower than ours in the United Kingdom should have asylum. That argument applies to just about every country in the world.
Opposition Members must know that a large number of asylum applicants to this country are bogus applicants. They must also know that the large number of bogus applicants weigh down our system to the great detriment of the genuine applicants, for whose plight they do not seem to care. All they can say is that more money should be put into the system. I would rather put more money into the pockets of the pensioners in my constituency. [Interruption.] Labour Members always come out in their true colours. They say one thing but do another. They say they want to put more money into the pockets of the pensioners, when really they want to put more money into the pockets of the bureaucrats—same old Labour. They are just the same as they always were.
I cannot imagine how Labour Members think that even their own voters support their ridiculous attitude to immigration into this country.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Yes, well, Madam Deputy Speaker, is all that one can say about the contribution of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
The order is about speed, not justice. That is the simple message that is sent to the House. The message is clear from the explanatory note, which reminds us that the order provides part of the machinery for an "accelerated appeal procedure". It is not a more effective, more efficient or a more just and equitable appeal procedure: it is an accelerated appeal procedure.
The order establishes a rebuttable presumption against asylum status for those coming from white list countries. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Shoreham can sit still for a moment, try to concentrate and put all his silly notions out of his mind, I will tell him what a rebuttable presumption is.
Let me draw a picture for the hon. Gentleman in his mind of the scales of justice. When civil litigation of any kind starts, the scales of justice are evenly balanced. But in this instance there is a rebuttable presumption, so—if the hon. Gentleman will concentrate again for a moment—a bag of rotten apples is being put in one side of the scales of justice.
That is what a rebuttable presumption is. That is what it means. Metaphorically speaking, asylum seekers from one of the white list countries must eat the bag of rotten apples first, and then present their case. I ask the Minister, who I know is excited by the debate, to concentrate for a few moments, because I hope that we will receive an answer to this when the debate is wound up.
I respectfully submit to the House that the Government are doing this contrary to two international treaty obligations.

Miss Widdecombe: Nonsense.

Mr. Carlile: The Minister can reply later. I am glad that she is listening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Name the obligations.

Mr. Carlile: I will. The first is article 3 of the 1951 United Nations convention, which states:
The contracting states shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion, or country of origin.
It is plain that the white list discriminates against country of origin. What is a white list if it is not a deliberate act by Government to set one lot of countries of origin against another lot of countries of origin? Part of the rationale behind the United States Government's decision not to have a white list system is exactly that they understand article 3 of the 1951 convention.
But the order is also contrary to article 13 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms—I know that the Government do not like it, but we have been in it since 1948—because it provides that—[Interruption.] wonder why the Minister finds this terribly funny. If she would like to intervene and tell us the joke, I would be pleased to hear it, and so would this country's asylum seekers.

Miss Widdecombe: The joke is the sheer ineptitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. If the creation of a designated list were against international law, why is it valid in so many other countries?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady must tell us exactly what advice—she must place it in the Library—she has received from Government lawyers and from outside counsel, if the Government have taken it, as to whether—[Interruption.] She seems to find this whole thing a joke. I will give way to the Minister in a moment, but this subject is not regarded as one for hilarity by the many thousands of people who fear that, if they are returned to countries such as India or Pakistan, they will be persecuted.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it ill behoves Ministers to talk about ineptitude when, not once but twice, the spirit of the legislation has been knocked back in the courts as contrary to all tenets of human justice?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I was going to remind the Minister that the order appears, at least to me, to breach article 13 of the European convention. The order amounts to an ineffective remedy, because of the introduction of the presumption, and it runs contrary to the Council of Europe resolution of 20 June 1995, in that it gives only 10 days for the asylum seeker to prepare his appeal, which cannot be regarded as adequate time to do so.
There is a world of difference between someone who fears real persecution if he is sent back, for example, to Pakistan preparing such an appeal and the purring motor of the high-cost sector of civil litigation, where interlocutory appeals can occasionally be heard within seven or 14 days. The scales of justice are nothing more than the digestion of prejudice by euphemism. The presumption against asylum seekers from these countries is institutionalising prejudice against every applicant from every one of those countries, and the Minister knows it.
The order is all about one thing, and one thing only. It gets the Government out of one of the biggest cock-ups—and that is saying something—that even they have ever created. They have been running the immigration and asylum service for the past 17 years. They have allowed the system to get into the mess it is in.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No, I will not give way.
The Minister of State does not like hearing this, but it is true that the Government have created this chaos.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I will not give way. The hon. Lady should wait and stop interrupting. She, on behalf of the Government, has created the utter mess that has led to a huge backlog of cases. We are discriminating against people because the Government cannot run the Department properly.
I do not believe that the Minister can deny that people will be sent back to persecution, and possibly even death, as a result of the political regimes in their own countries—a number have already been mentioned—because the Government cannot run their asylum service properly.

Mr. David Atkinson: I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about Bulgaria. Nor do I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about Poland. Both those countries are now full members of the democratic community—the Council of Europe. They have signed the European convention on human rights—

Ms Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Atkinson: No, I shall continue for the time being.
That convention offers the strongest possible protection of human rights—our citizens and members of the Council of Europe are protected by it. Those countries have all held free and fair elections, which is why we allowed them to become full members of the Council of Europe. Both Bulgaria and Poland have strong and active human rights organizations—a residue of their communist days—that know how to operate the machinery of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, I do not share the concerns expressed about those countries being designated as safe countries.
I should say in response to the suggestion that Bulgaria has not yet signed the framework convention on minorities that the hon. Member for Walthamstow must


surely know that that has only just come into being. A large number of member states of the Council of Europe have yet to sign it. I have no doubt that Bulgaria will sign it after its presidential elections, which are to be held next month. I have no problems with any member states that are full members of the Council of Europe.
However, I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the situation in Pakistan—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I expressed my concerns at Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill on 21 February. In response to those concerns, my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave certain assurances, which she has repeated this evening. She also gave those assurances to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and me when we discussed the situation in Pakistan at a private meeting with her and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary had only just returned from Pakistan, where he had seen the situation for himself—unlike many other people.
In view of the concerns that have been expressed so forcibly by the hon. Member for Blackburn this evening, will my hon. Friend the Minister use the opportunity of her response to point out once again that no Pakistani Christian or member of the Ahmadi sect who applies for asylum in this country and is being subjected to harassment, threat of assassination, life imprisonment or the death penalty for violating section 295(c) of the Pakistani penal code—the blasphemy law—will face the threat of being refused asylum if they have a strong enough case?

Miss Widdecombe: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that no one applying for asylum in this country who has a strong enough case—who makes the case of a well-founded fear of persecution, and sustains the merits of that case—will be refused asylum.

Mr. Atkinson: I am delighted to hear that repetition, which I know the whole House will have noted and—hopefully—found reassuring.
On Report, I referred to a number of Pakistani Christians who had been killed by Muslims because they were Christian. Since then, a new case has been drawn to my attention. To safeguard his identity, he is codenamed Pastor Sam. He converted to Christianity in 1973, since when he has suffered maltreatment, harassment, police beatings, illegal custody, torture and other abuse. Since his Christian marriage, he has been targeted by Islamic extremists, who have falsely accused him of a minor affray in order to have him arrested, after which he would have undoubtedly met death in custody. He was, however, bailed. He is now in hiding awaiting a magistrate's response to allegations of blasphemy under section 295(c) of the Pakistan penal code, which would certainly be accompanied by a charge of apostasy if and when he were arrested, and followed by certain death.
I understand that Pastor Sam and his family will apply for asylum in this country, or will do so shortly on their arrival here. I have sent his details to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, urging that their applications be given the most compassionate consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend

the Minister can assure me tonight that, as she has already stressed, the effect of this order will in no way prejudice the applications for asylum from Pastor Sam and his family and others like them in Pakistan.

Mr. Keith Hill: The principle at stake in this debate is that each asylum application should be assessed on its merits alone. It is the Opposition's contention that the inclusion of a country in the designated list will undermine such individual assessment by creating a presumption against the credibility of that asylum application from a national of a designated country. We have heard nothing from the Minister to allay those anxieties.
The Minister repeatedly said in Committee that each applicant will be treated to a substantive interview, irrespective of whether that applicant is from a designated country. It is unavoidable that a Home Office caseworker will conduct an interview with a designated applicant in the knowledge that a certificate has been issued with regard to that country, and as a consequence be more resistant to the asylum claim. Indeed, if the designated list did not create presumption against the claim, there would be no point in having it.
If a caseworker is in any doubt about the circumstances prevailing in a designated country, he or she will naturally consult the Home Office's country assessment. In relation to Pakistan, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has spoken, the caseworker will find the observation:
There is no evidence of Government-led persecution of minorities".
In contrast, the United States State Department commented in its 1995 report on Pakistan human rights practices:
Discriminatory religious legislation has encouraged an atmosphere of religious intolerance which has led to acts of violence against Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and Zikris.
I am pleased to see that, in the Home Office country assessment, applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given very careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Home Office assessment also states:
Ahmadis are recognised as a religious group and rights are safeguarded under the constitution.
That is in totally contrast to the tone of the remarks of the retiring German ambassador to Pakistan, Mr. Alfred Vesting, who earlier this year wrote:
Both the constitution and the penal code constitute the legal basis of the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, who, should they wish to profess or to practise their faith, must live in constant fear. Since they have been officially dubbed as heretics, they are in their daily life exposed to every possible repression and assault against which they cannot or dare not defend. Thus, they are, so to say, outlawed.
According to the Home Office:
There is no systematic or Government-led persecution of Christians in Pakistan'.
Nevertheless—this matter has already been referred to by, among others, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)—section 295(c) of the penal code introduced by the Pakistani Government in 1986 stipulates the death penalty for blaspheming the prophet Mohammed, and that provision has been used against Christians. Perhaps the best known case is that of Salamat and Rehmat Masih, both of whom have now—significantly—been granted asylum in the west.
The Jubilee Campaign has produced extensive evidence of the continuing imprisonment of and widespread violence against Christians, their churches and their property—outrages often carried out with the connivance of the police and other authorities. I once again cite the US State Department report:
Among religious minorities there is a well-founded belief that the authorities afford them less legal protection than they afford Muslim citizens.
Contrary to the Home Secretary's claim, there is ample proof of the systematic persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan, and, at the very least, this Government have failed to make a case for including Pakistan in the designated list.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that my croaking voice will last long enough to enable me to make one or two points, and that hon. Members will bear with me. I had not intended to speak, but the nonsense that I have heard from the Opposition has brought me to my feet.
One of the most serious immigration and asylum problems we face is the length of the queues for entry into this country. We agree that the shorter we can make those lists and the quicker we can make the process, the better it will be for everyone—not only the British citizens but those we are welcoming into the country under the immigration and asylum process.
It therefore seems eminently sensible that the Government should seek to determine whether there is any way in which it would be reasonable to speed up the entry procedure. They look and see that there are certain countries from which practically every application for asylum is turned down. We know the reasons for that, and it is in that direction that the Government look to speed up the system. They have done so by shortening and, to some extent, reducing the appeal procedure for applicants for asylum from those areas.
The Government have not abolished the appeal procedure, because there are still 10 days in which it can be used for appealing to the adjudicator, and judicial review is still available if there is a problem with the legality of any application. However, it seems eminently sensible that every reasonable effort should be made to shorten the queue in the area in which it will do least harm.
I quite agree with Opposition Members that the system must not prejudice an applicant's right to be properly considered. We have the assurance of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), and other Home Office Ministers that applications will not be prejudiced in any way. It is also obvious that an application from a listed country is not going to be limited in any sense prior to the point at which it is granted or refused. Applications will be fully considered, and every aspect of the arguments will be taken into account.
It does not seem to me to matter a jot whether there is or is not any presumption when an applicant comes from a suspect country, so long as the burden of proof does not change—and the burden of proof is not changing now.
While I was considering that point, I heard the preposterous argument—made in support of the Opposition's claim—that someone who was a friend and

supporter of the Prime Minister of Pakistan's father should want to come here as an asylum seeker, running from the daughter.
It is the same party, and has the same traditions. I do not think that there are many people, if any, who, having supported the Bhutto regime and opposed the ul-Haq regime, run away from the Bhutto regime, would come to this country having run away from the daughter. If there is any such person, for any reason, I am satisfied that the grounds for his or her application will be properly arid sensibly considered.
There was a long rant from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I do not share Opposition Members' view in this debate that the Government's intention is to screw down and make totally impossible genuine asylum applications from people from those seven countries.
I should have liked to hear Opposition Members—whether Liberal Democrat or Labour Members—tell us that they are genuinely trying to assist with our asylum procedures, to make them more effective and efficient. Not once did we hear any suggestion that they might have in the alternative on how to speed up the process. If the Opposition parties want to oppose the scheme that we are proposing for speeding up—as far as we reasonably can—the asylum process, it is incumbent on them to offer in return a practicable and acceptable alternative. Clearly they cannot do so, and their opposition must fail.
We are all agreed that decent and justifiable asylum seekers should have the right of asylum. In the name of all that is sensible in asylum policy in this country, we must join together and do what we can to make our system more efficient and effective. This is one such measure. Those who object to it only make themselves look stupid.

Mr. Max Madden: If a contradiction of what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has just said is necessary, we need only remind ourselves that, as we speak, preparations are under way in west London to open a tent city to provide temporary accommodation to asylum seekers—including many children—who are now so destitute that they have no means of survival. That fact has been brought to public attention, not only by reverses for the Government in the courts but by the speeches of the leaders of British Churches.
My hon. Friendthe Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) have made it very clear that a central part of the Geneva convention was a requirement that all asylum cases should be considered on an individual basis. However much the Government protest, it is very clear that the central purpose of this order is to erect a presumption that all applicants from these seven countries have an unfounded claim.
I have read very carefully the country assessments produced by the Home Office. In all fairness, I can say only that I found them to be completely inadequate. In many respects, they were quite pathetic, and they gave every appearance of being cobbled together by very junior officials over a very short period. Almost daily during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, I called for these documents to be made available, and I was


always told that they were being prepared. I wonder why it took so long to produce so little—although I shall not dwell on that point.
I should like to consider India specifically, and some quotes about India from the United States State Department. In March 1996, the State Department stated:
There continue to be serious human rights abuses, despite extensive constitutional and statutory safeguards … abuses include extrajudicial executions and other political killings, torture and excessive use of force by security forces and separatist militants … torture, rape and deaths of suspects in police custody are widespread throughout India.
In 1996, Amnesty International found:
Thousands of political prisoners were held without charge or trial under special or preventative detention laws … At least 100 people died in police and military custody, many as a result of torture.
The torture of detainees was described as "endemic in every state".
Finally, I draw again to the attention of the House the position in the Punjab, where 3,000 people have been cremated as unidentified and unclaimed bodies. The activist who tried to expose this, Mr. Jaswant Singh Kalra, remains a disappeared person.
I remember vividly my visits to the Punjab since 1990, during which I have interviewed literally hundreds of Sikhs. They gave me detailed accounts of the human rights abuses that they and their families had suffered. They are mirrored in the reports to which I have referred.
Much play is made in the Home Office documents of elections in the Punjab and elections in Kashmir. I do not believe that those elections should be any comfort to hon. Members, because it is clear that, in the elections in Kashmir, there has been unacceptable coercion. The refusal of the Indian Government to invite international observers to monitor those elections remains a matter of considerable concern.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that the next Labour Government would abolish the designated list—the white list—and would deal with all asylum claims properly and promptly. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) that the only way in which to do that is to ensure that proper staff and other resources are available, so that all asylum claims are dealt with fairly, justly and expeditiously.
I do not believe that the Home Office should rely on the poor-quality reports that we are considering tonight. I look forward to the next Labour Government establishing a human rights unit within the Foreign Office, which would advise the Government—

Mr. Kirkhope: rose—

Mr. Madden: The unit would advise the Government on human rights issues around the world.

Mr. Kirkhope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden: I strongly suggest that the House should establish a Select Committee on human rights, so that it can advise the next Labour Government on human rights issues.
The order is the latest disgraceful instalment of restrictive legislation of enacted by this Government to deter those who have well-founded claims for asylum from seeking haven in this country. It will be part of the political epitaph that will be hung round the neck of this miserable Government in the dying days of this Parliament. We all look forward to an end to this miserable approach to a very serious human rights issue. I hope that the order will be defeated tonight, that it will be thrown out with the other miserable legislation that the Government have introduced over the past 17 years.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Is it not clear to the House this evening that the Government have been visited by their previous sins? When the Asylum and Immigration Bill was debated at its various stages, the Government claimed that there was a major problem with illegal immigration. Yet, on every occasion that they were challenged by Committee members from all parties, the Government were unable to produce any evidence or figures to justify that claim. Indeed, one of the reasons that they gave for involving employers in the tracking of illegal immigrants was that they were unable to make any estimation of the problem that they claimed existed.
The Government have said that they could meet their international obligations under the Geneva convention and the European convention on human rights. I do not understand—and I do not think that the British people will understand—how the Government can say that each case will be dealt with on its merits when there is one system for the seven countries named this evening, and another for asylum claimants from other parts of the world.
Are we to believe that immigration officers faced with two different systems will use the same presumptions in dealing with each case on its merits? I put it to the House that that is not the case, and immigration department officials have made that point to me. They know that there are other ways to improve efficiency and to get people through the system that do not involve this ridiculous procedure.
Do not the Government know that their proposals will not work? Mr. Justice Glidewell stated in his report that he did not believe that the proceedings for dealing with asylum cases would be speeded up, because he knows—as do most lawyers who deal with these matters—that further doubt in dealing with the cases will slow the system down. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, people will inevitably seek judicial reviews to get justice and their rights, and that will clog up the system further.
The more one looks for legitimate motives, reason and logic in the 1996 Act and the order, the more one fails to find them. One must then remember what the Conservative candidate for Cambridgeshire South-West said when he was head of the research department—that the Act and the order had nothing to do with efficiency, and certainly nothing to do with fairness, but were examples of the Conservatives playing a race card that they think—I believe, erroneously—will assist them in the general election.
The Government could not justify the Bill or the Act, and I do not believe that they can justify the order. The same contradictions are apparent. As my hon. Friend the


Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the Foreign Secretary himself has acknowledged, in correspondence with the chairman of the Conservative party, that, together with other EU Foreign Secretaries, representations are being made to the Pakistan Government about their failure to uphold human rights for the Ahmadi community. If they cannot uphold human rights in their own country, why should we put them on a so-called "safe list"?
I do not believe that this order should be passed tonight, but if it is, it will not be long before this House, on a negative resolution, has to consider Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Zaire and the other countries where the same level of rejections is apparent, as the Minister pointed out in relation to the seven countries this evening. I do not believe that this order has any support in this country. The Economist called the Bill "a nasty little Bill", and this is a nasty little order that should be thrown out this evening.

Miss Widdecombe: There has not been a single speech from Opposition Members tonight that has not revealed a profound misunderstanding of these orders.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Nor has there been any appreciation, or any attempt at appreciation, by the Opposition of the difference between acknowledging that there may be some violations of human rights and some dangers facing some people within a country and invalidating the general assessment of a country as largely safe.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Corbyn: I was not sure she had heard me.

Miss Widdecombe: I think the whole House heard the hon. Gentleman. There is, however, a difference between not being heard and simply being ignored, which is what happened to the hon. Gentleman.
Two sensible questions were asked in the debate, both by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) raised the question of compliance costs. The purpose of the order is not to add to costs but to reduce them, so the situation does not arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) asked me once again to make it clear that cases would be considered on their merits, and that the mere fact that a country was designated would not automatically mean that everybody applying from that country was refused.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave us a long treatise on the state of Pakistan. Then, in great triumph, he referred to a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Gentleman is much attached to smoking letters and other things be believes to be of great importance. All that letter did was uphold our position. We have said that a country may be generally safe, but that does not mean that there are not pockets within it where there may be problems. Nor does it mean that people applying from that country will not be treated on their merits.
I turn next to the amazing contribution by the hon. And—I am told—learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He made an amazing blunder. He gave us an exposition of international conventions, his main thesis being that, because we treat applicants from some countries differently from others, we are therefore discriminating and in breach of article 3 of the refugee convention. That article is about refugees, not seekers of asylum. He failed to make that basic distinction. The order applies to those seeking to be recognised as refugees; the convention applies to those recognised as refugees.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a similar blunder when he referred to article 13 of the European convention on human rights. He said that it prohibited discrimination in matters covered by the convention. It does; but that convention does not confer a right to asylum. He thus made a complete mess of it from start to finish. I am glad that he is not my lawyer, if that is how he understands basic conventions.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made a tremendous contribution, despite an obvious handicap tonight. He admirably summed up what we are seeking to do. We are seeking to speed up the process so that genuine applicants may be heard in good time, their cases may be properly considered, and they may find the haven that they require. Unfounded applications, however, should be dealt with as efficiently as possible.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B(1).

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 236.

Division No. 215]
[11.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bates, Michael
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair






Butcher, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jack, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Jenkin, Bernard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Coe, Sebastian
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Congdon, David
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, Sir David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Couchman, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cran, James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Legg, Barry


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Luff, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Durant, Sir Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Elletson, Harold
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evennett, David
Mans, Keith


Faber, David
Marland, Paul


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Merchant, Piers


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mills, Iain


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


French, Douglas
Moate, Sir Roger


Fry, Sir Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gallie, Phil
Nelson, Anthony


Gardiner, Sir George
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Norris, Steve


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gorst Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hannam, Sir John
Pickles, Eric


Hargreaves, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Harris, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hayes, Jerry
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Robathan, Andrew


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Horam, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)





Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Sir Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfieid)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Soames, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speed, Sir Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Spink, Dr Robert
Whitney, Ray


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sproat, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Thomason, Roy





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Corston, Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Donohoe, Brian H


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Fraser, John


Chidgey, David
Fyfe, Maria


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galloway, George


Church, Judith
Gapes, Mike






George, Bruce
Keen, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Kilfoyle, Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Kirkwood, Archy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Graham, Thomas
Livingstone, Ken


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAllion, John


Grocott, Bruce
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
McKelvey, William


Hall, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hanson, David
McLeish, Henry


Harman, Ms Harriet
McMaster, Gordon


Harvey, Nick
McNamara, Kevin


Henderson, Doug
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Madden, Max


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Maddock, Diana


Hinchliffe, David
Mahon, Alice


Hodge, Margaret
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hoey, Kate
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Home Robertson, John
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Meacher, Michael


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Michael, Alun


Hoyle, Doug
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hutton, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Rhodri


Ingram, Adam
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Murphy, Paul


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Neill, Martin


Jowell, Tessa






Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spellar, John


Patchett, Terry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pearson, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thurnham, Peter


Radice, Giles
Timms, Stephen


Randall, Stuart
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reid, Dr John
Trickett, Jon


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Rooker, Jeff
Walley, Joan


Rooney, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Eric Clarke.


Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I turn now to motion No. 3, which contains a small error. The words, "That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House", were inadvertently omitted from the end of the motion as printed on today's Order Paper. Therefore, the motion will be moved in the form in which it was tabled yesterday. Copies are available in the Vote Office, should hon. Members wish to refer to them.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a)the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and
(b)the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
The principle of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill has been endorsed many times in the House. As hon. Members know, a great deal of work has been undertaken in this place in Standing Committee and in Select Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). It has also been subject to much scrutiny in another place. The purpose of the motion before the House today is simply to ensure that the Bill can be carried forward for further consideration in the next parliamentary Session and to ensure that the good work done here and in another place in improving the Bill since its introduction is not aborted.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The Opposition do not intend to delay either the House or the Bill tonight. We clearly support the motion that is before us and welcome the work that has been done on the Bill. We hope that, on its return, the Bill will move swiftly to a conclusion and receive Royal Assent. That will enable the work to be undertaken and completed as soon as possible—although, in view of the speed with which the Government have dealt with the Bill previously, I expect that a Labour Government will push it through to its conclusion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As one of the 44 Members of Parliament who voted against the channel tunnel legislation on 5 June 1986 on the grounds that it would not pay and would be a dead loss, I think that the Government should listen to my views even at this late hour. Most of the other 44 hon. Members have either died or lost their seats in the intervening period.
My point is basic and simple: when the channel tunnel legislation was before the House, we were given the absolute assurance—it appeared in Hansard at the time—

that, as it was a dramatic commercial prospect, there was no question of any Government subsidy or contribution in relation to rail projects. The Minister will recall that some hon. Members said, that even if the tunnel were busy for seven days a week and 24 hours a day and the trains were packed all the time, there was no way it would be commercially viable.
Unfortunately, because the channel tunnel has proved to be such an appalling disaster, banks at home and abroad have lost a great deal of money and there is not the slightest prospect of the project paying its way. I am concerned that, when the Bill was discussed on 25 April, some hon. Members who obviously know a great deal claimed that there would be a Government contribution of £1.4 billion and that some assets worth considerably more would be handed over to London and Continental very cheaply. Is it proper, given the latest channel tunnel reorganisation of finances, which involves write offs and great losses to banks, to let the motion pass through the House without the equivalent of a Third Reading discussion? Should we not take into account the new circumstances of the reorganisation of the finances of the channel tunnel?
The Government may say that the new circumstances do not matter, but clear and specific assurances were given by the Minister responsible that there would be no question of any subsidy for rail projects in Kent and elsewhere. As it appears from Hansard that there are such payments, would it not be possible for some assurance to be given that it is lawful for these contributions to be made, given the clear and specific assurances that were given when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill was being discussed?
The Government may think that these considerations do not matter, but at the end of the day they surely must take into account that the great majority of the House voted for the Bill on the specific assurance that was given by Members, including Ministers, that the channel tunnel would be a remarkably successful financial project and that there was no question of Government finance, direct or indirect. It now seems, sadly, that Government finance will be involved.

Mr. David Chidgey: I welcome the Bill and wish to speed its passage through the House. However, I have two small points to put to the Minister. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting beside him. The Minister may recall that the right hon. Gentleman, when responding to me on 26 April, confirmed that the rail link would be able to carry piggy-back freight. I accept that he said that the main purpose of the rail link was to carry passengers, but he said that, by taking passenger services from existing rail lines, it would free up capacity in the existing network, which would be more suitably used by freight trains.
The Minister may recall that the Secretary of State made some play of the benefit to domestic passengers of reserving capacity on the rail link by virtue of eight domestic trains per hour in peak periods. It was claimed that the increase in overall capacity within the network would ease congestion in the network. The cost of the exercise has been reported to be £360 million in the form of a domestic capacity charge to preserve the eight train cars. That is in addition to £1.4 billion for the construction costs.
Is the Minister aware that Connex South-East, the train operating company that has inherited the relevant domestic paths, now says that it does not want them? It says that they are not economically viable because there are unlikely to be sufficient passengers wanting to use a local service through to St. Pancras. If that is the case—I hope that the Minister will say otherwise—the Government's arguments about freeing up capacity lie in shreds. The justification for public money advanced earlier by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) falls by the wayside. It would appear that putting forward £1.4 billion of public money for the construction costs plus £360 for the domestic service grant is basically flawed.
Unless domestic services are directed on to the rail link, how will capacity be found for freight train services from Europe on to what is admitted is an already congested existing network?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this debate must be fairly narrow because it relates to a carry-over procedure. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that he is advancing reasons why there should not be a carry-over, well and good. It seemed, however, that he was developing a general theme.

Mr. Chidgey: I think that I have made my point, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Perhaps I might make my point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say in answer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that my constituents now take 50 minutes in commuting to London. The rail link will allow them from the Ebbsfleet international station to commute in only 19 minutes. I can assure him that there are thousands of people who would use the service.
My constituents view the Bill with mixed feelings, because they have suffered considerable blight since the project first appeared in 1988. The channel tunnel rail link will cause considerable environmental damage to my constituents in north-west Kent. However, the international station that is proposed for Ebbsfleet will be a catalyst for massive economic regeneration, and for that reason we would like to see an early decision on the Bill and want its enactment to take place during the next few weeks or months.
There are, however, outstanding issues that should be properly addressed, the principal one being Ashenhank woods—a major piece of ancient woodland in my constituency. If the current proposals, which have been considered in the House, by the Select Committee and in the other place, were to go through, they would have a major impact on the environmental record of the rail link, because geological studies have shown that the ground beneath that wood is made up of loose gravel and lignite, which would require the rail link to have a very wide cutting indeed, and that by definition means the devastation of the woodland.
Strong representations have been made to both Select Committees by Cobham parish council, the Woodland Trust and other environmental organisations. The Select Committee in the other place paid particular attention to the environment and in its interim report said:

We recommend that the promoters start with the assumption that retained wall cuttings in Ashenhank Wood are the best option.
The promoter, Union Railways, has replied to the House of Lords Select Committee—I quote from its commentary on the preliminary decisions:
The Promoters note that the Select Committee does not require construction of a tunnel beneath Ashenbank Wood. The Promoters undertake to require the nominated undertaker to look further at the potential benefits of some ground retaining measures in reducing the amount of land-take to the wood. The conclusions of the studies to date, which Gravesham Borough Council, English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission, and Kent County Council have accepted, is that another solution, a package of mitigatory and compensatory measures … is more promising.
That response is somewhat disingenuous. It refers to some ground-retaining measures and does not refer—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing somewhat the same path as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has had his little fling. He must now come back to the point.

Mr. Arnold: My point is that I hope that the House of Lords Select Committee will stick to its guns and to the decision that it has taken on behalf of the environment and for my constituents.
I have another brief point to make. The Minister of State is present. I ask him to accelerate the interdepartmental review of blight. Both Select Committees have expressed great sympathy for my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Winzar and Mrs. Smith, who have been very severely hit by the blight impact of this proposal. We want action, not words. I hope that my hon. Friend will do his utmost to speed up the process of the interdepartmental review.

Mr. Watts: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T Taylor) asked whether the Bill involved any subsidy to the channel tunnel. It is important that we distinguish between the tunnel and the rail link project. The Bill does not provide any subsidy to the channel tunnel itself in the ownership of Eurotunnel. It does provide some element of Government support towards the private finance initiative project as a whole, and that is in recognition of the benefits both to domestic and international travellers from the provision of this high-speed link.
That leads me to the point made by the hon. Member for—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not accept that, at column 1187 of the Official Report on 5 June 1986, a specific question was asked about rail links, and a clear, specific assurance was given that there was no question of any Government cash being used for rail links?

Mr. Watts: My recollection of the statutory position is that subsidy to the channel tunnel is prohibited, but if my hon. Friend will allow me I shall write to him with a more detailed answer than I can give him off the cuff tonight.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about the domestic capacity. We have secured eight peak hour train paths and, as those will reduce journey times for Kent commuters by 30 minutes, it is inconceivable that they will not prove to be popular services.
As to who operates those services, the franchising director has said that the existing franchisee will have the opportunity to bid to operate them. But if the operator chose not to do so, the franchising director would offer them to other operators. I would be amazed if there was not intense competition for the right to run such premium services.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the rail link has to be capable of carrying freight, although it will be for the operator to decide whether he wishes to accept freight on the link. It is being built to a larger loading gauge than the rest of our network, so it should be capable of piggy-back.
As to the existing lines which will have capacity released, obviously a detailed engineering study would be required to identify whether modifications were needed for piggy-back traffic. However, as there is an active proposal for piggy-back services to start operation, I suspect that any such work will have been undertaken long before the rail link is up and running.
We are aware, because my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has brought it to our attention so many times, of the importance of the proper treatment of Ashenbank woods. As my hon. Friend said, the Select Committee in another place expressed a strong preference for the design to start from a presumption of retained cuttings, and appropriate undertakings have been given by the promoters. As to whether I am right in believing that the undertakings are adequate for the purposes of the Select Committee in another place, I would rather wait to see the Select Committee's special report which is to be published tomorrow. If they are not, doubtless the Select

Committee will say so and there will then be the opportunity to take the matter further during the Report stage in another place and consideration in the Commons of Lords amendments.
When the departmental review of blight was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, he said in Standing Committee that we would expect an interim report from the working party in the autumn. As far as I am aware, that is still on course to be delivered. However, I understand the urgency that my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed upon me in the past and we shall seek to deliver that as rapidly as we can.
With those few remarks I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That this House do meet on Thursday 17th October at half-past Nine o'clock. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Fishing (South-East)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Dr. Robert Spink: It is a privilege for me to speak tonight on behalf of the Essex fishermen and, in particular, 50 Essex fishing boats.
The boats operate essentially as a non-sector organisation and that results in some disadvantages compared with the generally more powerful producer organisations which operate from Britain's major fishing ports. The south-east has a strong fishing tradition and is now essentially a sole fishery, but other species are available and are fished from time to time. As the boats are non-sector, the fishermen receive their monthly quotas direct from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and therefore cannot develop any overall catch marketing strategy.
Another key disadvantage concerns decommissioning. Producer organisations retain their track record following decommissioning. But if a non-sector, south-east boat is decommissioned, its track record is submerged into the whole of the United Kingdom fleet. As things currently stand, the south-east would therefore lose that track record.
I turn to the topical question of the common fisheries policy, which was agreed in 1982. Its laudable key objectives were, first, to meet and protect the needs of coastal communities, fishermen and fisheries-related industries and, secondly, to protect and conserve sea fish stocks. Since the CFP's introduction, fishermen and fish-related industries of the south-east have been badly let down. The CFP is simply not working in their favour, and they feel betrayed by it.
As for conservation, fish stocks continue to be greatly threatened and damaged. Some have been effectively wiped out. One example is that North sea plaice have been devastated, removing one of the opportunities for south-east fishermen. Quota hoppers take 44 per cent. of plaice, which the 1982 agreement had clearly earmarked for the British industry. So there we have it—irrefutable evidence that the CFP is not meeting its key objectives. In a nutshell, most of the damage has been caused to fish stocks by foreign fishing operations.
Non-sector fishermen were delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister visited Leigh and Castle Point to listen carefully to their concerns. I am therefore delighted that he has found time in his busy schedule to reply to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who has done so much behind the scenes to help Essex fishermen, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and I met the Minister with local fishermen. The fishermen demanded action to resolve the problem of quota hopping. We see in today's news that the Minister is taking just that action. I congratulate him on his firm and just stand to reverse the law with a protocol in the revised Maastricht treaty.
Under Government proposals, it should be possible to limit the allocation of quotas to fishing boats that are owned by businesses operating in the United Kingdom, that have a crew made up of UK residents and that land a proportion of their catch into the UK for the benefit of

the UK processing industry. Those measures would effectively end quota hopping—and not a moment too soon.
Twenty-two per cent. of total UK tonnage of our offshore fleet is owned and operated by foreign interests. I know how much distress that causes to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been such a stalwart fighter on behalf of his fishermen. The European Court of Justice has enfranchised the quota hoppers, and that cannot be right, as it was never the intention of the 1982 agreement that the British quota should be taken by foreign vessels. We should think carefully before sticking doggedly to an agreement that clearly fails to be in the interests of the people of the UK. One thing I do know: we have an excellent champion in my hon. Friend the Minister, and we congratulate him on tackling quota hopping and on meeting and listening carefully to our local fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I ask the Government to go further if possible. We ask them, first, to improve quota management arrangements for the non-sector industry and, secondly, to secure exemption from quota for very small, traditionally built fishing boats. I know that the Minister may have in mind a figure of about 8 m. My local fishermen would prefer the exemption to apply to any boat below 10 m. There is a debate there and no doubt the Minister will listen carefully to what we say. Thirdly, I ask the Government to consider ways in which to enable a non-sector area to retain its track record after decommissioning, as the producer organisations currently do.
Perhaps more specifically for Leigh and Canvey, we ask the Minister to limit licences so that specific south-east fishing specialisations such as the cockle fishing industry can be protected, and to ensure that the European Union, in redistributing our own money to us under the PESCA fund, does so fairly for the benefit of Southend and Canvey. The PESCA fund gives help to communities affected by the decline of fishing industries. I understand that about £400,000 has been made available: it has been set aside for competitive bids between the Southend and King's Lynn travel-to-work areas. The fund should be used to provide the necessary hygiene, ice-making and fish-handling equipment and infrastructure at the point of landing, not only in Leigh and on Two Tree island, but on Canvey island.
Some 250 families in our area are dependent on the fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I are doing all that we can to assist those families; we know that their jobs are badly threatened by the current situation. We also know that my hon. Friend the Minister is fighting on their behalf. The families are a small, but worthy, honourable and loyal community. They are led by good people such as Mr. Godbold and Dave Spurgeon of the Little Haven Fishermen's Association. They deserve a better deal than that currently afforded them by the common fisheries policy. They are shrewd people. They know that Labour's shallow sham of a European policy would fail them miserably, on fishing as elsewhere.
The Labour party leader said that he would never be isolated in Europe, but our fishermen demand just that: they want isolation from the European vessels, particularly from the quota hoppers. Labour's European policy would finish off our fishing industry. A Labour Government would surrender to their European socialist brothers. They would run up the white flag on every one of our fishing boats. They


would have plenty of white flags to use after they had broken up the United Kingdom and destroyed the Union Jack. The white flag would be the new Labour Union Jack. But it should not come to that.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced party politics, because he knows that many of the measures that he has been advocating tonight have been supported by the Opposition. That is particularly true of the calls for greater control over our own waters and giving inshore boats—which often fish in selective, environmentally friendly ways—some positive help in terms of quota allocation. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, many of the reforms can be brought about only through the European Union and the Commission. The way to do that is to argue constructively, seek allies and advance progressively—not to stand on the sidelines without participating in the debate.

Dr. Spink: As we would all expect, the hon. Gentleman comes forward with warm words. But my constituents, particularly my fishermen, all know that the Labour party's instincts are to surrender everything to a federal Europe, not to protect and defend Great Britain—the Conservative party's instincts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I support my hon. Friend the Minister in seeking tough reforms of the CFP. The Government's policy of reform is absolutely correct and they are to be congratulated on it. But if progress with Europe is not made to the advantage of our fishing communities, we cannot stand by and let them sink—we cannot desert them. We may ultimately have to consider the example of the Norwegians who, outside the CFP, have a workable system based on national control within their own 200-mile limit. We could then apply our own conservation regime and control all vessels that fish our waters. That would require a special derogation from the free movement provisions of the treaty of Rome—notably article 52—at the current intergovernmental conference. I am delighted that that is high on the Government's list of priorities.
We all know that there is a serious question mark over the quality and stringency of control of some fishing boats. There is simply no effective catch data verification or control by some member nations. That cannot be allowed to continue.
The CFP rules are becoming more and more complex and are effectively criminalising an honourable group of British workers. That cannot be allowed to continue. We could maintain sensible co-operation with Europe, but a policy of equal access may simply prove unworkable. Europe itself is not working. What could be more senseless than paying huge subsidies to produce and store food, then destroy it, or to risk life to catch good fish, only to throw it overboard, polluting our seas? We need strong Conservative leadership and common sense that puts Britain first—the sort of leadership that my hon. Friends the Minister and the Members for South Hams and for Basildon have given on this fishing issue.
On 20 August, the excellent Canvey Island Times reported my hon. Friend the Minister's visit to our town. It stated:

Leigh and Canvey fishermen said they were pleased with their meeting with the Minister".
They told me so as well. They trust the Minister. They trust the Government to defend their interests. They trust our instincts. Their trust is well placed.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on allowing us the opportunity to debate these important matters. There is little doubt that he has been a champion of the local fishing industry. On 27 March I had the opportunity to raise this subject in another Adjournment debate. As a result, my hon. Friend the Minister agreed to attend what has been proved to be an historic meeting, which took place in July at Beambridge yacht club. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I were present, together with my hon. Friend the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Minister met a whole number of people and many famous families whose livelihoods depend on the cockle industry and on fishing generally. He learnt at first hand just how important fishing is to our particular part of Essex. Many of those fishermen have done much for this country, especially during the second world war.
It was a delight to myself and other colleagues that my hon. Friend the Minister attended the meeting bearing gifts. He listened very carefully to what the representatives had to say, and I believe that on every count he met their wishes. There is just one outstanding subject. He will recall looking at the Thames estuary and listening carefully to the points about the need for some extra funding for dredging the estuary. I wonder whether he has had time to consider that further.
Obviously, Conservative Members are very concerned about proposals to reduce the United Kingdom catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was entirely right in what he said about the Labour party's stance on this issue. There is great duplicity on the subject. I very much hope that at the November meeting Britain will hold its ground and give no truck to the bureaucratic nightmare of a regional fishing policy, as advocated by the Liberal Democrats. The proposals would mean a veritable jungle of committees and bureaucracy, overseen by Brussels, with Britain allowed no say in the running of our industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I hope to visit Europe before Christmas to meet the Fisheries Commissioner.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is a waste of time.

Mr. Amess: I do not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and myself intend to meet the lady, and we shall do our very best to put the case firmly. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has done so far and for what he will do in future.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for allowing me to make a few chosen comments in this


excellent Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on the quality of his speech, and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on his excellent contribution, which we have come to expect from him. I speak from experience of the second largest fishing port in England and Wales, which is in Brixham in my constituency and, fortunately, shares well in the £500 million-worth of fish landed in this country each year.
Unfortunately, whether in the south-east or the south-west, millions of pounds are lost through quota hoppers. Of the UK's 20,000 fishermen, 4,000 are Dutch and Spanish. That may seem double Dutch—it is certainly hard to understand. It is by far the single most important issue for UK fishermen—it remains central to the common fisheries policy for all fishermen, whether they come from the south-east or the south-west. Quotas were given to individual countries by the European Union and were never intended to be tradeable commodities.
The UK fishing industry leads the way with technical conservation methods and in general has a good record of compliance with EU regulations, but every time Spanish fishermen are caught breaking the rules by trawling with the wrong net size or landing undersized fish while flying the red ensign, it is the British fishermen's reputation that is tarnished.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Minister for Agriculture for their unstinting commitment to resolving the quota-hopping problem once and for all. I thank the Minister of State personally for coming to my constituency several times—he is always most welcome.
If Commissioner Bonino is not minded to help, we shall have to refuse to renew the common fisheries policy when it expires in the year 2002. Will the Minister say whether it is correct that if the fisheries policy is not renegotiated and in place by 2002, the position reverts to what it was pre-1973? Other countries are pinching nearly half of our fish quota. If the European Courts mean anything, they must ensure that justice is done and that our quota is handed back to us—and handed back fast.

Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) decided to focus attention on the concerns of the fishing industry in the south-east, because it gives me the opportunity to report to the House on the talks and meetings that I have had with fishermen from the area in recent months. If, in the time available, I cannot respond in detail to the various points raised by him and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen), I shall of course write to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was successful in securing a debate in March in which he set out the problems facing Essex and Thames estuary fishermen in particular. In that debate, he invited me to visit Leigh-on-Sea. I am pleased that I was able to take up his kind offer. In July I was pleased to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friends the Members for

Basildon and for Castle Point. I was also able to combine that visit with a long-standing invitation to meet the inshore fishermen of Aldeburgh.
I found both visits extremely valuable, as they enabled me to have an additional insight into the operation of the non-sector fleets. I shall explain to the House in more detail what I mean by non-sector fleets and the problems that local fishermen have to face. Of course, I am determined to continue to meet fishermen from around the country. Indeed, in the coming months I shall have further talks with fishermen at ports as far apart as Harwich and Rye.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will know, and as I have made clear many times, my only concern is to secure the best possible deal for UK fishermen. That should be apparent from the outcome of yesterday's Fisheries Council in Luxembourg. A great deal of time was spent discussing technical conservation measures and the Commission's proposals for further reducing the size of our fleet. I made it clear that I could only accept conservation measures that were sensible and realistic and would command the respect of the UK fishermen. I also left fellow Fisheries Ministers in no doubt that I could not accept any further compulsory reduction in our fleet unless and until there was satisfactory progress on the issue of quota hoppers.
We have tabled our proposals before the intergovernmental conference and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised to other Heads of Government recently in Dublin, the national quota system in the common fisheries policy is designed to balance the need for fish conservation with a secure benefit for a member state's fishing community. There is a burning sense of injustice in Britain not only among fishermen but among people in general that the system of national quotas is being systematically undermined. We are determined to put that right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, it is crazy that nearly a fifth of the quota designated for UK fishermen is being taken by foreign owners of foreign vessels that are foreign crewed and foreign skippered. It is a crazy situation, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Even more crazy—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said—is that those vessels are purportedly flying our flag, masquerading as UK fishermen when they are anything but UK fishermen. They are not even landing their catch in the UK, and bring no economic benefit to us whatsoever.
I think that all hon. Members agree that the common fisheries policy is far from perfect. As the House knows, however, the answer is not to run away from it but to work for improvement to make the policy effective and fair. I am determined to do that. Fish are a common resource that do not respect national boundaries. We conserve that resource by working together within a common framework.
We are determined to maintain the restrictions on fishing within our six and 12-mile limits. Those restrictions are effective and fully supported by the UK industry. Under the CFP, only UK vessels can fish within six miles of our shore, and that includes most of the inshore fishing industry in the south-east.
There are also restrictions on access by foreign vessels within our six to 12-mile limits, so that, off


Essex for example, only French and Belgian vessels—because of historic rights to access—can fish within those limits alongside our own fishermen. We are fully committed to maintaining the restrictions on access by foreign vessels within our six and 12-mile limits.
I am conscious that fishermen in Essex and the south-east are facing a difficult and challenging future. I am also aware that there is continuing unease about the way in which our quota management arrangements work. As I made clear to the House last March, we have sought to operate arrangements that are fair and equitable and to encourage fishermen, through producers' organisations, to take on daily responsibility for the management of quota allocations.
Over the past eight years, many fishermen have opted to join or form producers' organisations. There are now 19 such organisations, and together they account for more than 90 per cent. of the uptake of our quotas. They also represent some 60 per cent. of our over 10 m fleet, and a much bigger proportion of those vessels that actively target quota stocks.
At the same time, I realise and fully appreciate that the majority of fishermen from the south-east are not covered by the network of producers' organizations—that they are non-sector fishermen. When I visited Leigh-on-Sea in July, some fishermen expressed considerable interest in setting up a producers' organisation to manage quota allocations and to market fish caught by Thames estuary fishermen. I welcome that, and I am pleased to learn that initial approaches by local fishermen in Essex who want to form a producers' organisation have been made to the Ministry. I can assure the House that we shall do everything we can within the framework of the European Community's marketing regulations to advise those fishermen and to assist that initiative.
I must also emphasise that we have taken important steps over the years, and that we will continue to do so, to safeguard the position of those who continue to operate as non-sector fishermen. First, monthly catch limits are set in consultation with representatives of non-sector fishermen, and every human effort is made to keep fisheries open throughout the year.
Secondly, producers' organisations that want to manage quota allocations must do so for all fish stocks. That means that, in managing the non-sector allocations, the fisheries department is able to focus exclusively on the interests of fishermen who are not members of producers' organisations. Officials in my Department are continually seeking to protect the interests of non-sector fishermen, and to ensure that those interests are looked after fairly.
Thirdly, we have introduced underpinning for stocks of particular interest to non-sector fishermen, including North sea sole and cod. Those arrangements have operated for the past two years, and this year, for example, they have resulted in non-sector fishermen receiving an extra 691 tonnes of cod, which is equivalent to 38 per cent. of their allocation.
From my discussion with fishermen, there was a clear desire that the arrangements for underpinning should be

extended to other fish stocks. The quota management arrangements for 1997 are due to be discussed in Edinburgh at the beginning of November with representatives of all sides of the industry. I intend to propose that underpinning should be extended to North sea whiting and plaice, which are the remaining two quota stocks of particular interest to Thames estuary fishermen.
Underpinning also operates for the under 10 m fleet. For the past three years, those fishermen have received a guaranteed share of the UK's quota irrespective of whether they have been able to catch their full entitlement. There may, for example, have been bad weather or fish stocks may have failed to turn up on inshore grounds.
To further safeguard the interests of the inshore fleet, we amended our licensing rules earlier this year to check the future growth in the number of powerful vessels just under the 10 m limit. I am also pleased to report that, so far this year, it has not been necessary to close any fishery to the small inshore fleet, including the North sea sole fishery. I hope that I have demonstrated that within the tight quota constraints set by the Community and the need to take effective measures to conserve fish stocks, the interests of south-east fishermen are not being overlooked. I am determined to ensure that they are treated fairly.
May I reassure my hon. Friend that the track records of decommissioned vessels in the membership of producer organisations are not, in fact, retained by the POs. The track records of all decommissioned vessels, irrespective of the group to which they belong, are shared among the remainder of the fishing fleet. Thus when a PO vessel is decommissioned, the non-sector is able to benefit from its track record. Indeed, I am told that, over the years, this arrangement has generally favoured the non-sector because it has obtained a share of the usually larger track records of decommissioned PO boats.
In our consultations on the present decommissioning scheme, we invited comments on the proposal that fishermen should be allowed to retain the track record from decommissioned vessels, with a percentage of those track records being set aside for the non-sector. I have to say that, alas, the consultation exercise revealed little support for this proposal from fishermen in the south-east or from any part of the industry, including the non-sector, with the result that it was not included in the final scheme. However, as I made clear at Leigh-on-Sea, I am always ready to listen to further representations. I appreciate the frustrations of the non-sector and of Essex and south-east fishermen in particular. If we have any future decommissioning round and if the fishermen wish to put forward further proposals, I shall be very happy to consider them.
I fully appreciate the importance of the sole fishery to fishermen within the Thames estuary. Last year, sole accounted for just under one third of the value of the total fish landed into Essex ports. The remainder of their earnings comes from other stocks such as cod, bass, plaice, sprats, skate and rays. Such diversification


is essential; fishermen must avoid becoming over-dependent on a single stock.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of exempting inshore fishermen from the constraints of quota management. Within the present discussions in the Community on the next round of decommissioning, there is much talk about exempting coastal fishing boats—some Fisheries Ministers yesterday gave figures as high as 14 m—from the constraints of quota management. That will have to be discussed within the whole context of future fisheries management.
I fully understand the frustrations of, for example, Aldeburgh fishermen. Although they are fishing just off the Suffolk coast and can go out only when the weather

conditions are fine, they are caught up in the same quota management conditions as large North sea trawlers are.
In respect of my hon. Friend's concern about financial assistance, I am pleased to tell the House that £400,000—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.